On Monday, September 13, 2010, M. Vefa Bicakci wrote: > On 11/09/10 06:27 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Saturday, September 11, 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> On Saturday, September 11, 2010, M. Vefa Bicakci wrote: > > ... > >>> > >>> I would be glad to test that patch as well, to see if it brings speed-ups. > >>> Actually, I might test hibernation with a larger value written to > >>> /sys/power/image_size when I have time. > >> > >> I think that would improve things, as it probably is impossible to reduce the > >> image size to 500 MB on your system. > >> > >> Anyway, I'll let you know when the patch is ready. > > > > OK, please try the patch below on top of the previous one and see if it makes > > hibernation run faster on your system. > > Dear Rafael Wysocki, > > I think I have good news. I took a clean 2.6.35.4 tree, and first applied > the latest version of your larger snapshot.c patch, and then the patch you > appended to your final e-mail in this thread. > > Here is a comparison of the timings from a kernel without your patch, and > one with it. > > === 8< === > Sep 11 10:22:24 debian kernel: [ 499.968989] PM: Allocated 2531300 kbytes in 52.66 seconds (48.06 MB/s) > Sep 11 10:44:08 debian kernel: [ 764.379131] PM: Allocated 2531308 kbytes in 143.41 seconds (17.65 MB/s) > Sep 11 10:48:41 debian kernel: [ 920.626386] PM: Allocated 2531300 kbytes in 66.44 seconds (38.09 MB/s) > Sep 11 10:53:37 debian kernel: [ 1092.919140] PM: Allocated 2531316 kbytes in 81.28 seconds (31.14 MB/s) > ... > Sep 13 01:26:09 debian kernel: [ 94.948054] PM: Allocated 1804008 kbytes in 28.72 seconds (62.81 MB/s) > Sep 13 01:29:58 debian kernel: [ 176.678880] PM: Allocated 1803992 kbytes in 34.44 seconds (52.38 MB/s) > Sep 13 01:33:48 debian kernel: [ 253.336405] PM: Allocated 1804000 kbytes in 27.35 seconds (65.95 MB/s) > === >8 === > > I didn't have your latest patch applied on September 11, and it was applied > last night. > > It looks like there is a good improvement. I think the data rates look > faster on Sept. 13 because the kernel spent less time "thinking" less > while compacting the memory image. (I don't think I have changed anything > in my configuration that could affect the data rates that much.) OK, thanks for testing and information. > Is it possible to have these patches applied to the 2.6.35 tree so that > the regression I reported is fixed? The "snapshot.c" patch has just been included into the Linus' tree as http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=6715045ddc7472a22be5e49d4047d2d89b391f45 > Should I e-mail Greg Kroah-Hartman about this? and I've already told Greg that it should go into 2.6.35.y. The second patch, however, only changes the default value of image_size, so it is not -stable material. As a workaround, you can change the init scripts on your system to set /sys/power/image_size to the same value that's in it when the second patch is applied. Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
