Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:49:51 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: CONFIG_NUMA breaks hibernation on x86-32 with PAE |
| |
> > > > Well, interesting point would be just before this commit: > > > > > > > > > > > > commit 8357376d3df21b7d6f857931a57ac50da9c66e26 > > > > tree daf2c369e9b79d24c1666323b3ae75189e482a4a > > > > parent bf73bae6ba0dc4bd4f1e570feb34a06b72725af6 > > > > author Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> Wed, 06 Dec 2006 20:34:18 -0800 > > > > committer Linus Torvalds <torvalds@woody.osdl.org> 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
| |