On Thu, 2 Dec 2010 16:37:21 -0800 (PST) Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 00:40:36 +0100 > > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > This patch is a fix for a regression and nasty memory corruption, so I'd like > > > to push it to Linus for 2.6.37 if there are no objections. > > (It will need backport to 2.6.35-stable and 2.6.36-stable: > IIRC it doesn't quite apply cleanly to those, so we'll need > to send a separate version.) > > > > > It looks OK to me for 2.6.37 but for 2.6.38 please let's make > > everything here a 100% no-op for CONFIG_PM_SLEEP=n builds. > > Specifically the slight overhead in __alloc_pages_nodemask. > > I expect you're right that the CONFIG_PM would better be CONFIG__PM_SLEEP; > but I think you misunderstand gfp_allowed_mask in __alloc_pages_nodemask: > it came from slab & slub, to fix some early bootup issues, and predates > Rafael's recent use of it in suspend and hibernation. > > > > > Because given the global nature of saved_gfp_mask and the unlocked way > > in which it is accessed, this facility won't be at all useful for > > anything other than suspend. > > ... and bootup. > Oh. Who writes this crap :( _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
