From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753618AbZEDUYW (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 16:24:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752907AbZEDUYN (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 16:24:13 -0400 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:38049 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752778AbZEDUYM (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 16:24:12 -0400 Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 22:27:11 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Wu Fengguang , Andrew Morton , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com, alan-jenkins@tuffmail.co.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-testers@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] PM: Drop shrink_all_memory (rev. 2) (was: Re: [PATCH 3/3] PM/Hibernate: Use memory allocations to free memory) Message-ID: <20090504202711.GA7258@elf.ucw.cz> References: <200905031830.49690.rjw@sisk.pl> <20090504093310.GC30306@elf.ucw.cz> <200905042153.37069.rjw@sisk.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200905042153.37069.rjw@sisk.pl> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon 2009-05-04 21:53:36, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday 04 May 2009, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > I know that swsusp_shrink_memory() has problems, that's why I'd like to get rid > > > of it. > > > > > > > I wonder if it's possible to free up the memory within 1s at all. > > > > > > I'm not sure. > > > > > > Apparently, the counting of saveable pages takes substantial time (0.5 s each > > > iteration on my 64-bit test box), so we can improve that by limiting the number > > > of iterations. > > > > We could increase step size after each step. Free in 40MB step, then > > 80MB step, then 160MB step, ... > > Why not just one step? It doesn't seem to hurt performance AFAICS. One step is obviously fine, too. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html