Hi!
> > > +static inline unsigned int get_kmalloc_size(void)
> > > +{
> > > +#define CACHE(x) \
> > > + if (sizeof(struct highmem_page) <= x) \
> > > + return x;
> > > +#include <linux/kmalloc_sizes.h>
> > > +#undef CACHE
> > > + return sizeof(struct highmem_page);
> > > +}
> > > +
> >
> > Can we get rid of this uglyness...
>
> Sure, we can.
Good.
> > > @@ -437,8 +446,14 @@
> > >
> > > static int enough_free_mem(unsigned int nr_pages)
> > > {
> > > - pr_debug("swsusp: available memory: %u pages\n", nr_free_pages());
> > > - return nr_free_pages() > (nr_pages + PAGES_FOR_IO +
> > > + struct zone *zone;
> > > + unsigned int n = 0;
> > > +
> > > + for_each_zone (zone)
> > > + if (!is_highmem(zone))
> > > + n += zone->free_pages;
> > > + pr_debug("swsusp: available memory: %u pages\n", n);
> > > + return n > (nr_pages + PAGES_FOR_IO +
> > > (nr_pages + PBES_PER_PAGE - 1) / PBES_PER_PAGE);
> > > }
> > >
> >
> > And just use 2% approximation here, too?
>
> Well, I don't think so. It's checking free memory _after_ the highmem
> pages have been "saved" (ie we are ready to create the image and just
> check if there are enough non-highmem pages to do this). Here we _know_
> exactly how many pages are needed for the image, so we don't need to use
> any "safety margins".
Ah, okay, I see. As long as the include hack is gone, its okay with me.
> > > Index: linux-2.6.15-rc3-mm1/kernel/power/swsusp.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux-2.6.15-rc3-mm1.orig/kernel/power/swsusp.c 2005-12-03 00:14:49.000000000 +0100
> > > +++ linux-2.6.15-rc3-mm1/kernel/power/swsusp.c 2005-12-03 21:25:07.000000000 +0100
> > > @@ -635,7 +635,8 @@
> > > printk("Shrinking memory... ");
> > > do {
> > > #ifdef FAST_FREE
> > > - tmp = count_data_pages() + count_highmem_pages();
> > > + tmp = 2 * count_highmem_pages();
> > > + tmp += tmp / 50 + count_data_pages();
> > > tmp += (tmp + PBES_PER_PAGE - 1) / PBES_PER_PAGE +
> > > PAGES_FOR_IO;
> > > for_each_zone (zone)
> >
> > This part is okay. Just make enough_free_mem use similar code. (If
> > possible, share the code, it is really computing the same thing).
>
> enough_free_mem() must not take highmem into account, so it has
> to use different code. IOW, the current implementation is buggy,
> so I'm trying to change it.
Ok, sorry, I did not notice that.
Pavel
--
Thanks, Sharp!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]