[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#683768: linux-image-3.2.0-3-amd64: hibernate 3x slower after upgrade to linux-image-3.2.0-3-amd64



On Sun, 2012-08-05 at 17:50 -0500, hugo vanwoerkom wrote:
[...]

> Yes, 3.2.19-1 still takes 12s. But as to problems
> disappearing/appearing I could have sworn that 3.2.21-3 took 12s. last
> night but now it takes 35s. I think the problem comes from the kernel,
> because that is the only thing that I am varying and I have been
> hibernating this box for years with up to now predictable speeds.
> Don't use wicd though.

If the change was made between 3.2.19 and 3.2.21 then it might be due
to:

commit d006ab31cd818f5e4dda2453fd09767063f49933
Author: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Date:   Tue May 29 15:06:45 2012 -0700

    mm: consider all swapped back pages in used-once logic

So you could test with the reverse of that patch (attached), following
the instructions at
<http://kernel-handbook.alioth.debian.org/ch-common-tasks.html#s4.2.2>

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Theory and practice are closer in theory than in practice.
                                - John Levine, moderator of comp.compilers
From f5487f80a6e4561b38855f4b5fd1fb94b203e755 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 00:30:00 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Revert "mm: consider all swapped back pages in used-once
 logic"

This reverts commit d006ab31cd818f5e4dda2453fd09767063f49933.
Testing for bug #683768.
---
 mm/vmscan.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index 48febd7..79b3ef9 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -697,7 +697,7 @@ static enum page_references page_check_references(struct page *page,
 		return PAGEREF_RECLAIM;
 
 	if (referenced_ptes) {
-		if (PageSwapBacked(page))
+		if (PageAnon(page))
 			return PAGEREF_ACTIVATE;
 		/*
 		 * All mapped pages start out with page table

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: