On Saturday 25 March 2006 02:16, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday 24 March 2006 08:07, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Tuesday 21 March 2006 05:46, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > swsusp_shrink_memory() is still wrong, because it will always fail for
> > > image_size = 0. My bad, sorry.
> > >
> > > The appended patch (on top of yours) should fix that (hope I did it
> > > right this time).
> >
> > Well I discovered that if all the necessary memory is freed in one call
> > to shrink_all_memory we don't get the nice updating printout from
> > swsusp_shrink_memory telling us we're making progress. So instead of
> > modifying the function to call shrink_all_memory with the full amount
> > (and since we've botched swsusp_shrink_memory a few times between us), we
> > should limit it to a max of SHRINK_BITEs instead.
> >
> > This patch is fine standalone.
> >
> > Rafael, Pavel what do you think of this one?
>
> In principle it looks good to me, but when I tested the previous one I
> noticed shrink_all_memory() tended to return 0 prematurely (ie. when it was
> possible to free some more pages). It only happened if more than 50% of
> memory was occupied by application data.
>
> Unfortunately I couldn't find the reason.
Perhaps it was just trying to free up too much in one go. There are a number
of steps a mapped page needs to go through before being finally swapped and
there are a limited number of iterations over it. Limiting it to SHRINK_BITEs
at a time will probably improve that.
Cheers,
Con
-
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]
