lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/5] PM/Hibernate: Do not release preallocated memory unnecessarily (rev. 2)
Date
On Sunday 16 August 2009, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 07:05:09AM +0800, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday 05 May 2009, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 08:22:38AM +0800, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> > > >
> > > > Since the hibernation code is now going to use allocations of memory
> > > > to create enough room for the image, it can also use the page frames
> > > > allocated at this stage as image page frames. The low-level
> > > > hibernation code needs to be rearranged for this purpose, but it
> > > > allows us to avoid freeing a great number of pages and allocating
> > > > these same pages once again later, so it generally is worth doing.
> > > >
> > > > [rev. 2: Change the strategy of preallocating memory to allocate as
> > > > many pages as needed to get the right image size in one shot (the
> > > > excessive allocated pages are released afterwards).]
> > >
> > > Rafael, I tried out your patches and found doubled memory shrink speed!
> > >
> > > [ 579.641781] PM: Preallocating image memory ... done (allocated 383900 pages, 128000 image pages kept)
> > > [ 583.087875] PM: Allocated 1535600 kbytes in 3.43 seconds (447.69 MB/s)
> >
> > Unfortunately, I'm observing a regression and a huge one.
> >
> > On my Atom-based test box with 1 GB of RAM after a fresh boot and starting X
> > with KDE 4 there are ~256 MB free. To create an image we need to free ~300 MB
> > and that takes ~2 s with the old code and ~15 s with the new one.
> >
> > It helps to call shrink_all_memory() once with a sufficiently large argument
> > before the preallocation.
>
> The 10 fold slowdown may be related to swapping IO:

I guess it is.

> shrink_all_memory() tends to be reclaiming less anon pages.
>
> Is this box running on SSD? (Which can be slow on random writes.)

No, on a normal spinning-plate HDD (2.5'').

Thanks,
Rafael


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-08-17 00:51    [W:0.257 / U:4.020 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site