On Wednesday 17 of October 2012 19:07:25 Ming Lei wrote: > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@sisk.pl> wrote: > > > > This appears to be a bit too heavy handed. First of all, it seems to affect > > all memory allocations going in parallel with the resume callback. Second, > > No, the flag is per task, only memory allocation inside resume callback > is effected.
OK > > it affects all resume callbacks, not only those where the problem really > > We can do it only on block device, block device's ancestor and network > devices(iSCSI case), but that may introduce policy into PM core or add > one flag of memalloc_noio_resume into 'dev_pm_info', could you agree > on it? Well, the question is how many runtime resume callbacks actually allocate memory. If they are not too many, we can just flag all of them. Otherwise, adding a flag may be a better approach. I'm not sure ATM. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
