Re: [PATCH 3/3][RFC] swsusp: shrink file cache first

[Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>]

On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 01:00:09PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 05:49:07 +0100
> Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:
> 
> > > and, I think you should mesure performence result.
> > 
> > Yes, I'm still thinking about ideas how to quantify it properly.  I
> > have not yet found a reliable way to check for whether the working set
> > is intact besides seeing whether the resumed applications are
> > responsive right away or if they first have to swap in their pages
> > again.
> 
> Describing your subjective non-quantitative impressions would be better
> than nothing...

Okay.

> The patch bugs me.

Please ignore it, it is broken as is.  My verbal cortex got obviously
disconnected from my code cortex when writing the changelog...  And I
will reconsider the actual change bits, I still think that we
shouldn't scan anon page lists while may_swap is zero.

> The whole darn point behind the whole darn page reclaim is "reclaim the
> pages which we aren't likely to need soon".  There's nothing special
> about the swsusp code at all!  We want it to do exactly what page
> reclaim normally does, only faster.
> 
> So why do we need to write special hand-rolled code to implement
> something which we've already spent ten years writing?
> 
> hm?  And if this approach leads to less-than-optimum performance after
> resume then the fault lies with core page reclaim - it reclaimed the
> wrong pages!
> 
> That actually was my thinking when I first worked on
> shrink_all_memory() and it did turn out to be surprisingly hard to
> simply reuse the existing reclaim code for this application.  Things
> kept on going wrong.  IIRC this was because we were freeing pages as we
> were reclaiming, so the page reclaim logic kept on seeing all these
> free pages and kept on wanting to bale out.
> 
> Now, the simple and obvious fix to this is not to free the pages - just
> keep on allocating pages and storing them locally until we have
> "enough" memory.  Then when we're all done, dump them all straight onto
> to the freelists.
> 
> But for some reason which I do not recall, we couldn't do that.
> 
> It would be good to revisit all this.

Thanks for the comments, I will see what I can come up with.

	Hannes