linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, fengguang.wu@intel.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pavel@ucw.cz, nigel@tuxonice.net,
	rientjes@google.com, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] PM/Hibernate: Rework shrinking of memory
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 22:55:03 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200905132255.04681.rjw@sisk.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090513123409.302f4307.akpm@linux-foundation.org>

On Wednesday 13 May 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 10:39:25 +0200
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> 
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> > 
> > Rework swsusp_shrink_memory() so that it calls shrink_all_memory()
> > just once to make some room for the image and then allocates memory
> > to apply more pressure to the memory management subsystem, if
> > necessary.
> > 
> > Unfortunately, we don't seem to be able to drop shrink_all_memory()
> > entirely just yet, because that would lead to huge performance
> > regressions in some test cases.
> > 
> 
> Isn't this a somewhat large problem?

Yes, it is.  The thing is 8 times slower (15 s vs 2 s) without the
shrink_all_memory() in at least one test case.  100% reproducible.

> The main point (I thought) was to remove shrink_all_memory().  Instead,
> we're retaining it and adding even more stuff?

The idea is that afterwards we can drop shrink_all_memory() once the
performance problem has been resolved.  Also, we now allocate memory for the
image using GFP_KERNEL instead of doing it with GFP_ATOMIC after freezing
devices.  I'd think that's an improvement?

> > +/**
> > + * compute_fraction - Compute approximate fraction x * (a/b)
> > + * @x: Number to multiply.
> > + * @numerator: Numerator of the fraction (a).
> > + * @denominator: Denominator of the fraction (b).
> >   *
> > - *	Notice: all userland should be stopped before it is called, or
> > - *	livelock is possible.
> > + * Compute an approximate value of the expression x * (a/b), where a is less
> > + * than b, all x, a, b are unsigned longs and x * a may be greater than the
> > + * maximum unsigned long.
> >   */
> > +static unsigned long compute_fraction(
> > +	unsigned long x, unsigned long numerator, unsigned long denominator)
> 
> I can't say I'm a great fan of the code layout here.
> 
> static unsigned long compute_fraction(unsigned long x, unsigned long numerator, unsigned long denominator)
> 
> or
> 
> static unsigned long compute_fraction(unsigned long x, unsigned long numerator,
> 					unsigned long denominator)
> 
> would be more typical.

OK
 
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long ratio = (numerator << FRACTION_SHIFT) / denominator;
> >  
> > -#define SHRINK_BITE	10000
> > -static inline unsigned long __shrink_memory(long tmp)
> > +	x *= ratio;
> > +	return x >> FRACTION_SHIFT;
> > +}
> 
> Strange function.  Would it not be simpler/clearer to do it with 64-bit
> scalars, multiplication and do_div()?

Sure, I can do it this way too.  Is it fine to use u64 for this purpose?

> > +static unsigned long highmem_size(
> > +	unsigned long size, unsigned long highmem, unsigned long count)
> > +{
> > +	return highmem > count / 2 ?
> > +			compute_fraction(size, highmem, count) :
> > +			size - compute_fraction(size, count - highmem, count);
> > +}
> 
> This would be considerably easier to follow if we know what the three
> arguments represent.  Amount of memory?  In what units?  `count' of
> what?
> 
> The `count/2' thing there is quite mysterious.
> 
> <does some reverse-engineering>
> 
> OK, `count' is "the number of pageframes we can use".  (I don't think I
> helped myself a lot there).  But what's up with that divde-by-two?
> 
> <considers poking at callers to work out what `size' is>
> 
> <gives up>
> 
> Is this code as clear as we can possibly make it??

Heh

OK, I'll do my best to clean it up.

> > +#else
> > +static inline unsigned long preallocate_image_highmem(unsigned long nr_pages)
> > +{
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline unsigned long highmem_size(
> > +	unsigned long size, unsigned long highmem, unsigned long count)
> >  {
> > -	if (tmp > SHRINK_BITE)
> > -		tmp = SHRINK_BITE;
> > -	return shrink_all_memory(tmp);
> > +	return 0;
> >  }
> > +#endif /* CONFIG_HIGHMEM */
> >  
> > +/**
> > + * swsusp_shrink_memory -  Make the kernel release as much memory as needed
> > + *
> > + * To create a hibernation image it is necessary to make a copy of every page
> > + * frame in use.  We also need a number of page frames to be free during
> > + * hibernation for allocations made while saving the image and for device
> > + * drivers, in case they need to allocate memory from their hibernation
> > + * callbacks (these two numbers are given by PAGES_FOR_IO and SPARE_PAGES,
> > + * respectively, both of which are rough estimates).  To make this happen, we
> > + * compute the total number of available page frames and allocate at least
> > + *
> > + * ([page frames total] + PAGES_FOR_IO + [metadata pages]) / 2 + 2 * SPARE_PAGES
> > + *
> > + * of them, which corresponds to the maximum size of a hibernation image.
> > + *
> > + * If image_size is set below the number following from the above formula,
> > + * the preallocation of memory is continued until the total number of saveable
> > + * pages in the system is below the requested image size or it is impossible to
> > + * allocate more memory, whichever happens first.
> > + */
> 
> OK, that helps.

Great!

Thanks for the comments. :-)

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2009-05-13 21:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <200905070040.08561.rjw@sisk.pl>
2009-05-07 21:48 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/5] PM/Hibernate: Rework memory shrinking (rev. 2) Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-07 21:50   ` [RFC][PATCH 1/5] mm: Introduce __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-07 22:24     ` [RFC][PATCH] PM/Freezer: Disable OOM killer when tasks are frozen (was: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] mm: Introduce __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL) Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-07 21:51   ` [RFC][PATCH 2/5] PM/Suspend: Do not shrink memory before suspend Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-08  8:52     ` Wu Fengguang
2009-05-07 21:51   ` [RFC][PATCH 3/5] PM/Hibernate: Move memory shrinking to snapshot.c (rev. 2) Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-08  8:53     ` Wu Fengguang
2009-05-07 21:53   ` [RFC][PATCH 4/5] PM/Hibernate: Rework shrinking of memory Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-07 21:55   ` [RFC][PATCH 5/5] PM/Hibernate: Do not release preallocated memory unnecessarily Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-10 13:48   ` [RFC][PATCH 0/6] PM/Hibernate: Rework memory shrinking (rev. 3) Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-10 13:50     ` [RFC][PATCH 1/6] mm: Introduce __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-11 20:12       ` David Rientjes
2009-05-11 22:14         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-11 22:33           ` Andrew Morton
2009-05-11 23:04             ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-10 13:50     ` [RFC][PATCH 2/6] PM/Suspend: Do not shrink memory before suspend Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-10 13:51     ` [RFC][PATCH 3/6] PM/Hibernate: Move memory shrinking to snapshot.c (rev. 2) Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-10 13:53     ` [RFC][PATCH 4/6] PM/Hibernate: Rework shrinking of memory Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-10 13:57     ` [RFC][PATCH 5/6] PM/Hibernate: Do not release preallocated memory unnecessarily Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-10 19:49       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-10 14:12     ` [RFC][PATCH 6/6] PM/Hibernate: Estimate hard core working set size Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-10 19:53       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-13  8:32     ` [RFC][PATCH 0/6] PM/Hibernate: Rework memory shrinking (rev. 4) Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-13  8:34       ` [PATCH 1/6] PM/Suspend: Do not shrink memory before suspend Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-13  8:35       ` [PATCH 2/6] PM/Hibernate: Move memory shrinking to snapshot.c (rev. 2) Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-13  8:37       ` [PATCH 3/6] mm, PM/Freezer: Disable OOM killer when tasks are frozen Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-13  9:19         ` Pavel Machek
2009-05-13 22:35         ` David Rientjes
2009-05-13 22:47           ` Andrew Morton
2009-05-13 23:01             ` David Rientjes
2009-05-13  8:39       ` [PATCH 4/6] PM/Hibernate: Rework shrinking of memory Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-13 19:34         ` Andrew Morton
2009-05-13 20:55           ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2009-05-13 21:16             ` Andrew Morton
2009-05-13 21:56               ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-14  9:40                 ` Pavel Machek
2009-05-14 17:49                   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-15 13:09                     ` Pavel Machek
2009-05-14 18:26             ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-13  8:40       ` [PATCH 5/6] PM/Hibernate: Do not release preallocated memory unnecessarily (rev. 2) Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-14 11:09         ` Pavel Machek
2009-05-14 17:52           ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-15 13:11             ` Pavel Machek
2009-05-15 14:52               ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-13  8:42       ` [RFC][PATCH 6/6] PM/Hibernate: Do not try to allocate too much memory too hard Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-14 11:14         ` Pavel Machek
2009-05-14 17:59           ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-15 13:14             ` Pavel Machek
2009-05-15 14:40               ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-17 12:06         ` Wu Fengguang
2009-05-17 12:55           ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-17 14:07             ` Wu Fengguang
2009-05-17 16:53               ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-18  8:32                 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-05-17 21:14               ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-18  8:56                 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-05-18 17:07                   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-19  0:47                     ` Wu Fengguang

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200905132255.04681.rjw@sisk.pl \
    --to=rjw@sisk.pl \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=nigel@tuxonice.net \
    --cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).