[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090206122129.79CC.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 12:39:22 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3][RFC] swsusp: shrink file cache first
Hi
I have some comment.
> File cache pages are saved to disk either through normal writeback by
> reclaim or by including them in the suspend image written to a
> swapfile.
>
> Writing them either way should take the same amount of time but doing
> normal writeback and unmap changes the fault behaviour on resume from
> prefault to on-demand paging, smoothening out resume and giving
> previously cached pages the chance to stay out of memory completely if
> they are not used anymore.
>
> Another reason for preferring file page eviction is that the locality
> principle is visible in fault patterns and swap might perform really
> bad with subsequent faulting of contiguously mapped pages.
>
> Since anon and file pages now live on different lists, selectively
> scanning one type only is straight-forward.
I don't understand your point.
Which do you want to improve suspend performance or resume performance?
if we think suspend performance, we should consider swap device and file-backed device
are different block device.
the interleave of file-backed page out and swap out can improve total write out performce.
if we think resume performance, we shold how think the on-disk contenious of the swap consist
process's virtual address contenious.
it cause to reduce unnecessary seek.
but your patch doesn't this.
Could you explain this patch benefit?
and, I think you should mesure performence result.
<snip>
> @@ -2134,17 +2144,17 @@ unsigned long shrink_all_memory(unsigned
>
> /*
> * We try to shrink LRUs in 5 passes:
> - * 0 = Reclaim from inactive_list only
> - * 1 = Reclaim from active list but don't reclaim mapped
> - * 2 = 2nd pass of type 1
> - * 3 = Reclaim mapped (normal reclaim)
> - * 4 = 2nd pass of type 3
> + * 0 = Reclaim unmapped inactive file pages
> + * 1 = Reclaim unmapped file pages
I think your patch reclaim mapped file at priority 0 and 1 too.
> + * 2 = Reclaim file and inactive anon pages
> + * 3 = Reclaim file and anon pages
> + * 4 = Second pass 3
> */
> for (pass = 0; pass < 5; pass++) {
> int prio;
>
> - /* Force reclaiming mapped pages in the passes #3 and #4 */
> - if (pass > 2)
> + /* Reclaim mapped pages in higher passes */
> + if (pass > 1)
> sc.may_swap = 1;
Why need this line?
If you reclaim only file backed lru, may_swap isn't effective.
So, Can't we just remove this line and always set may_swap=1 ?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists