linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] PM / Hiberante : optimize swsusp

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <D2D54504A8A67848B028EBEA66F47B9AB2A2786E@ALA-MBA.corp.ad.wrs.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 Mar 2015 00:50:38 +0000
From:	"Yeon, JeHyeon (Tom)" <Tom.Yeon@...driver.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	"Tom(JeHyeon) Yeon" <tomyeon750415lkml@...il.com>
CC:	"pavel@....cz" <pavel@....cz>,
	"BROWN, A LEONARD" <len.brown@...el.com>,
	"jroedel@...e.de" <jroedel@...e.de>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] PM / Hiberante : optimize swsusp_free()

I'm sorry not to answer it.
I'm too busy nowadays on my project.
So, I'll add some details later.
Thank you.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [mailto:rjw@...ysocki.net] 
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 8:37 PM
To: Tom(JeHyeon) Yeon
Cc: pavel@....cz; BROWN, A LEONARD; jroedel@...e.de; linux-pm@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Yeon, JeHyeon (Tom)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM / Hiberante : optimize swsusp_free()

On Thursday, March 19, 2015 05:28:58 PM Tom Yeon wrote:
> From: "Tom(JeHyeon) Yeon" <tom.yeon@...driver.com>
> 
> I tested the performance of swsusp_free operation.
> The free time took about 58768us before commit fdd64ed, and
> the free time took about 40535us after the commit fdd64ed.
> 
> But, I optimized the function before I saw commit fdd64ed.
> So, I applied the patch in my system.(ARM Coretex A9, Dual Core 1GHz)
> The free time took about 35164us.
> I think that the finding routine for the same pfn is redundant

This changelog in total pants, sorry.

Please write what the patch is doing and why instead of describing
your testing experience.  The numbers are useful too, but only to
show what the gain is, and you need to explain what is changing and
why.

> Signed-off-by: Tom(JeHyeon) Yeon <tom.yeon@...driver.com>
> ---
>  kernel/power/snapshot.c |   43 ++++++++++---------------------------------
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/power/snapshot.c b/kernel/power/snapshot.c
> index c24d5a2..a1ad801 100644
> --- a/kernel/power/snapshot.c
> +++ b/kernel/power/snapshot.c
> @@ -726,14 +726,6 @@ static void memory_bm_clear_bit(struct memory_bitmap *bm, unsigned long pfn)
>  	clear_bit(bit, addr);
>  }
>  
> -static void memory_bm_clear_current(struct memory_bitmap *bm)
> -{
> -	int bit;
> -
> -	bit = max(bm->cur.node_bit - 1, 0);
> -	clear_bit(bit, bm->cur.node->data);
> -}
> -
>  static int memory_bm_test_bit(struct memory_bitmap *bm, unsigned long pfn)
>  {
>  	void *addr;
> @@ -1342,36 +1334,21 @@ static struct memory_bitmap copy_bm;
>  
>  void swsusp_free(void)
>  {
> -	unsigned long fb_pfn, fr_pfn;
> +	unsigned long pfn;
>  
>  	if (!forbidden_pages_map || !free_pages_map)
>  		goto out;
>  
>  	memory_bm_position_reset(forbidden_pages_map);
> -	memory_bm_position_reset(free_pages_map);
> -
> -loop:
> -	fr_pfn = memory_bm_next_pfn(free_pages_map);
> -	fb_pfn = memory_bm_next_pfn(forbidden_pages_map);
> -
> -	/*
> -	 * Find the next bit set in both bitmaps. This is guaranteed to
> -	 * terminate when fb_pfn == fr_pfn == BM_END_OF_MAP.
> -	 */
> -	do {
> -		if (fb_pfn < fr_pfn)
> -			fb_pfn = memory_bm_next_pfn(forbidden_pages_map);
> -		if (fr_pfn < fb_pfn)
> -			fr_pfn = memory_bm_next_pfn(free_pages_map);
> -	} while (fb_pfn != fr_pfn);
> -
> -	if (fr_pfn != BM_END_OF_MAP && pfn_valid(fr_pfn)) {
> -		struct page *page = pfn_to_page(fr_pfn);
> -
> -		memory_bm_clear_current(forbidden_pages_map);
> -		memory_bm_clear_current(free_pages_map);
> -		__free_page(page);
> -		goto loop;
> +	for ( ; ; ) {
> +		pfn  = memory_bm_next_pfn(forbidden_pages_map);
> +		if (BM_END_OF_MAP == pfn)
> +			break;
> +		if (memory_bm_test_bit(free_pages_map, pfn)) {

So why exactly isn't it necessary to look at memory_bm_next_pfn(forbidden_pages_map)?

> +			memory_bm_clear_bit(forbidden_pages_map, pfn);
> +			memory_bm_clear_bit(free_pages_map, pfn);
> +			__free_page(pfn_to_page(pfn));
> +		}
>  	}
>  
>  out:
> 

-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.