From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755241Ab1DEQRy (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Apr 2011 12:17:54 -0400 Received: from ksp.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.206]:56665 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755099Ab1DEQRu (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Apr 2011 12:17:50 -0400 Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 18:16:16 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Alexandre Felipe Muller de Souza , "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] Power Manager suspend-hybrid warn on systemlog Message-ID: <20110405161616.GC1615@ucw.cz> References: <1298384175.8390.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1298384175.8390.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue 2011-02-22 11:16:15, Alexandre Felipe Muller de Souza wrote: > I'm not shure if it's a correct solution, or if it breaks something on a > specific situation. So I decided to send it to the list, to someone more > experienced if that code send their opinion. I realized that > pm-suspend-hybrid generates a warning on system log (at least in intel > arch): cc: maintainers gets you faster response... > WARNING: at mm/page_alloc.c:122 pm_restrict_gfp_mask+0x4e/0x50() > Call Trace: > [] warn_slowpath_common+0x72/0xa0 > [] ? pm_restrict_gfp_mask+0x4e/0x50 > [] ? pm_restrict_gfp_mask+0x4e/0x50 > [] warn_slowpath_null+0x22/0x30 > [] pm_restrict_gfp_mask+0x4e/0x50 > [] suspend_devices_and_enter+0x52/0x1d0 > [] ? capable+0x15/0x50 > [] snapshot_ioctl+0x2b0/0x5c0 > [] ? tick_dev_program_event+0x42/0x150 > [] ? snapshot_ioctl+0x0/0x5c0 > [] do_vfs_ioctl+0x8d/0x5b0 > [] ? tomoyo_init_request_info+0x46/0x50 > [] ? tomoyo_path_number_perm+0x2b/0xe0 > [] ? ktime_get_ts+0xed/0x120 > [] ? tomoyo_file_ioctl+0x17/0x20 > [] sys_ioctl+0x67/0x80 > [] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x28 > > So I put some debugs, and saw 2 sequential calls for > pm_restrict_gfp_mask (in hibernate) that the second call warns it. So I > removed it, and made some tests and seens to work without warn (suspend, > hybrid, hibernate). So my question is: is it safe to do that? > The "problem" was tested and occurs on 2.6.37 and 2.6.38-rc5. > --- > > diff --git a/kernel/power/suspend.c b/kernel/power/suspend.c > --- a/kernel/power/suspend.c 2011-01-04 22:50:19.000000000 -0200 > +++ b/kernel/power/suspend.c 2011-02-21 15:39:16.000000000 -0300 > @@ -207,7 +207,6 @@ > goto Close; > } > suspend_console(); > - pm_restrict_gfp_mask(); > suspend_test_start(); > error = dpm_suspend_start(PMSG_SUSPEND); > if (error) { > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html