Re: CONFIG_NUMA breaks hibernation on x86-32 with PAE

[Pavel Machek]

> > > > Well, interesting point would be just before this commit:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > commit 8357376d3df21b7d6f857931a57ac50da9c66e26 
> > > > tree daf2c369e9b79d24c1666323b3ae75189e482a4a 
> > > > parent bf73bae6ba0dc4bd4f1e570feb34a06b72725af6 
> > > > author Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> Wed, 06 Dec 2006 20:34:18 -0800 
> > > > committer Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thu, 07 Dec 2006
> > > > 08:39:27 -0800 
> > > > 
> > > >     [PATCH] swsusp: Improve handling of highmem
...
> > And it does not work with single highmem page when NUMA is set... I
> > went through the highmem saving code, and it depends on highmem not
> > changing from  under it (right?) and is generally quite tricky ('if
> > they are both in highmem do this, else if one of them is do that, else
> > do something else')
> 
> It actually is quite simple, if you know the idea.
> 
> > and it changes page protections on the fly, etc. 
> 
> No, it doesn't do that, at least for pages it hasn't allocated itself.  I don't
> think it changes anything like page protections at all, though.

safe_copy_page() seems to call kernel_map_pages() on s_page... which
is page from the system AFAICT...

> > I'm not saying the bug is in that code, but before that commit we had
> > very stupid --- but very robust -- code. I'll try if that one works
> > with config_numa, perhaps we can get some debug info that way.
> 
> if you can do that, it actually may be valuable information.

So far I know that software suspend depends on !PAE in that old
version. If I only recalled why...
								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/