From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH][3/3] mm: swsusp post resume aggressive swap prefetch Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:11:01 +0100 References: <200603200234.01472.kernel@kolivas.org> <200603210022.32985.rjw@sisk.pl> <1142901862.441f4c66c748e@vds.kolivas.org> In-Reply-To: <1142901862.441f4c66c748e@vds.kolivas.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200603211911.01829.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: kernel@kolivas.org Cc: linux list , ck list , Andrew Morton , Pavel Machek , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tuesday 21 March 2006 01:44, kernel@kolivas.org wrote: > Quoting "Rafael J. Wysocki" : > > Sorry, I was wrong. After resume the image pages in the swap are visible as > > free, because we allocate them after we have created the image (ie. the > > image > > contains the system state in which these pages are free). > > > > Well, this means I really don't know what happens and what causes the > > slowdown. It certainly is related to the aggressive prefetch hook in > > swsusp_suspend(). [It seems to search the whole swap, but it doesn't > > actually prefetch anything. Strange.] > > Are you looking at swap still in use? Swap prefetch keeps a copy of prefetched > pages on backing store as well as in ram so the swap space will not be freed on > prefetching. It looks like I have to debug it a bit more. Unfortunately I've been having a lot of work to do recently, so it'll take some time. > > > If so, is there a way to differentiate the two so we only aggressively > > > prefetch on kernel resume - is that what you meant by doing it in the > > > other file? > > > > Basically, yes. swsusp.c and snapshot.c contain common functions, > > disk.c and swap.c contain the code used by the built-in swsusp only, > > and user.c contains the userland interface. If you want something to > > be run by the built-in swsusp only, place it in disk.c. > > > > Still in this particular case it won't matter, I'm afraid. > > I don't understand what you mean by it won't matter? Well, sorry. Of course it will matter. What I wanted to say is that in this case tbe built-in swsusp would be affected as well as the userland suspend, because the hook was in a function used by both. Greetings, Rafael -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org