From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3][RFC] swsusp: shrink file cache first
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 12:39:22 +0900 (JST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090206122129.79CC.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090206031324.004715023@cmpxchg.org>
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 ?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-06 3:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-06 3:11 [PATCH 0/3] [PATCH 0/3] swsusp: shrink file cache first Johannes Weiner
2009-02-06 3:11 ` [PATCH 1/3] swsusp: clean up shrink_all_zones() Johannes Weiner
2009-02-06 3:20 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-02-06 3:11 ` [PATCH 2/3] swsusp: dont fiddle with swappiness Johannes Weiner
2009-02-06 3:21 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-02-06 3:11 ` [PATCH 3/3][RFC] swsusp: shrink file cache first Johannes Weiner
2009-02-06 3:39 ` KOSAKI Motohiro [this message]
2009-02-06 4:49 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-02-06 5:59 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-02-06 12:24 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-02-06 13:35 ` MinChan Kim
2009-02-06 17:15 ` MinChan Kim
2009-02-06 23:37 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-02-09 19:43 ` [patch] vmscan: rename sc.may_swap to may_unmap Johannes Weiner
2009-02-09 23:02 ` MinChan Kim
2009-02-10 10:00 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-03-27 6:19 ` [PATCH] vmscan: memcg needs may_swap (Re: [patch] vmscan: rename sc.may_swap to may_unmap) Daisuke Nishimura
2009-03-27 6:30 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-03-29 23:45 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-03-31 0:18 ` Daisuke Nishimura
2009-03-31 1:26 ` Minchan Kim
2009-03-31 1:42 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-03-31 1:48 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-01 4:09 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-04-01 5:08 ` Daisuke Nishimura
2009-04-01 9:04 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-04-01 9:11 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-01 9:49 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-04-01 9:55 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-01 16:03 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-03-31 1:52 ` Daisuke Nishimura
2009-02-06 21:00 ` [PATCH 3/3][RFC] swsusp: shrink file cache first Andrew Morton
2009-02-06 23:27 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-02-07 17:23 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-02-08 20:56 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-02-07 4:41 ` Nigel Cunningham
2009-02-07 16:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-02-07 21:20 ` Nigel Cunningham
2009-02-27 13:27 ` Pavel Machek
2009-03-01 10:37 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-02-06 8:03 ` MinChan Kim
2009-02-06 10:06 ` MinChan Kim
2009-02-06 11:50 ` Johannes Weiner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090206122129.79CC.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).