Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750908AbWC3U6u (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Mar 2006 15:58:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750909AbWC3U6u (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Mar 2006 15:58:50 -0500 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:30422 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750902AbWC3U6t (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Mar 2006 15:58:49 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Con Kolivas Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: swsusp shrink_all_memory tweaks Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:57:24 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Cc: Nick Piggin , linux list , ck list , Andrew Morton , Pavel Machek , linux-mm@kvack.org References: <200603200231.50666.kernel@kolivas.org> <200603301912.32204.rjw@sisk.pl> <200603310638.23873.kernel@kolivas.org> In-Reply-To: <200603310638.23873.kernel@kolivas.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200603302257.24979.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1731 Lines: 46 On Thursday 30 March 2006 22:38, Con Kolivas wrote: > On Friday 31 March 2006 03:12, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > OK, I have the following observations: > > Thanks. > > > > 1) The patch generally causes more memory to be freed during suspend than > > the unpatched code (good). > > Yes I know you meant less, that's good. > > > 2) However, if more than 50% of RAM is used by application data, it causes > > the swap prefetch to trigger during resume (that's an impression; anyway > > the system swaps in a lot at that time), which takes some time (generally > > it makes resume 5-10s longer on my box). > > Is that with this "swsusp shrink_all_memory tweaks" patch alone? It doesn't > touch swap prefetch. Still swap prefetch is present in -mm so it can be triggered incidentally I think. > > 3) The problem with returning zero prematurely has not been entirely > > eliminated. It's happened for me only once, though. > > Probably hard to say, but is the system in any better state after resume has > completed? It seems so, but it also depends on the (actual) image size, memory usage before suspend etc. Well ... > That was one of the aims. Also a major part of this patch is a cleanup of > the hot balance_pgdat function as well, which suspend no longer touches with > this patch. I think the patch is a good idea overall, but it needs some more testing. I'll try to figure out a way to measure its performance, so we have some hard data to discuss. Greetings, Rafael - 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/