From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1762429AbZEGUBW@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1762429AbZEGUBW (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 7 May 2009 16:01:22 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754296AbZEGUBI
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Thu, 7 May 2009 16:01:08 -0400
Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:38382 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753887AbZEGUBG (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 7 May 2009 16:01:06 -0400
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: nigel@tuxonice.net
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] PM/Hibernate: Rework shrinking of memory
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 22:00:29 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.11.2 (Linux/2.6.30-rc4-rjw; KDE/4.2.2; x86_64; ; )
Cc: pm list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
       Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
References: <200905070040.08561.rjw@sisk.pl> <1241652436.19600.176.camel@nigel-laptop> <200905071418.05035.rjw@sisk.pl>
In-Reply-To: <200905071418.05035.rjw@sisk.pl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200905072200.30777.rjw@sisk.pl>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thursday 07 May 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday 07 May 2009, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > Hi.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 00:44 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki 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.
> > 
> > I know it doesn't fit with your current way of doing things, but have
> > you considered trying larger order allocations as a means of getting
> > memory freed?
> 
> Actually, I was thinking about that.  What's your experience with this
> approach?
> 
> > I have code in tuxonice_prepare_image.c (look for extra_pages_allocated) that
> > might be helpful for this purpose.
> 
> OK, thanks.  I'll have a look at it.

I have tried it, but the results are even worse than with 0-order allocations
only.

So far, I have got the best results with shrink_all_memory() called once and
followed by allocating as much memory as we want to be free using 0-order
allocations.  Like in this patch. :-)

Thanks,
Rafael