From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753154Ab0IMPkt (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Sep 2010 11:40:49 -0400 Received: from smtpauth.tellcom.com.tr ([92.45.6.163]:45298 "EHLO smtpout2.superonline.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752191Ab0IMPks (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Sep 2010 11:40:48 -0400 Message-ID: <4C8E45EB.8030408@superonline.com> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 11:40:27 -0400 From: "M. Vefa Bicakci" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100821 Icedove/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" CC: KOSAKI Motohiro , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, Minchan Kim Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM / Hibernate: Make default image size depend on totalRAM size References: <201009062043.37819.rjw@sisk.pl> <4C8BC68B.8050002@superonline.com> <201009112106.07687.rjw@sisk.pl> <201009120027.06470.rjw@sisk.pl> In-Reply-To: <201009120027.06470.rjw@sisk.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SMTP-Filter: SurGATE SMTP Filter Engine Release 2.1 ($Revision: 184 $) http://www.endersys.com X-SurGATE-Result: Clean (Content eval: -26.00 points) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/09/10 06:27 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Saturday, September 11, 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Saturday, September 11, 2010, M. Vefa Bicakci wrote: > ... >>> >>> I would be glad to test that patch as well, to see if it brings speed-ups. >>> Actually, I might test hibernation with a larger value written to >>> /sys/power/image_size when I have time. >> >> I think that would improve things, as it probably is impossible to reduce the >> image size to 500 MB on your system. >> >> Anyway, I'll let you know when the patch is ready. > > OK, please try the patch below on top of the previous one and see if it makes > hibernation run faster on your system. Dear Rafael Wysocki, I think I have good news. I took a clean 2.6.35.4 tree, and first applied the latest version of your larger snapshot.c patch, and then the patch you appended to your final e-mail in this thread. Here is a comparison of the timings from a kernel without your patch, and one with it. === 8< === Sep 11 10:22:24 debian kernel: [ 499.968989] PM: Allocated 2531300 kbytes in 52.66 seconds (48.06 MB/s) Sep 11 10:44:08 debian kernel: [ 764.379131] PM: Allocated 2531308 kbytes in 143.41 seconds (17.65 MB/s) Sep 11 10:48:41 debian kernel: [ 920.626386] PM: Allocated 2531300 kbytes in 66.44 seconds (38.09 MB/s) Sep 11 10:53:37 debian kernel: [ 1092.919140] PM: Allocated 2531316 kbytes in 81.28 seconds (31.14 MB/s) ... Sep 13 01:26:09 debian kernel: [ 94.948054] PM: Allocated 1804008 kbytes in 28.72 seconds (62.81 MB/s) Sep 13 01:29:58 debian kernel: [ 176.678880] PM: Allocated 1803992 kbytes in 34.44 seconds (52.38 MB/s) Sep 13 01:33:48 debian kernel: [ 253.336405] PM: Allocated 1804000 kbytes in 27.35 seconds (65.95 MB/s) === >8 === I didn't have your latest patch applied on September 11, and it was applied last night. It looks like there is a good improvement. I think the data rates look faster on Sept. 13 because the kernel spent less time "thinking" less while compacting the memory image. (I don't think I have changed anything in my configuration that could affect the data rates that much.) Is it possible to have these patches applied to the 2.6.35 tree so that the regression I reported is fixed? Should I e-mail Greg Kroah-Hartman about this? Once again, thank a lot to you, Kosaki Motohiro and Minchan Kim! M. Vefa Bicakci > [snip patch]