Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Mar 2023 16:19:52 +0000 | From | Matthias Kaehlcke <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] PM: hibernate: don't store zero pages in the image file. |
| |
On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 12:13:48PM -0500, Brian Geffon wrote: > On ChromeOS we've observed a considerable number of in-use pages filled with > zeros. Today with hibernate it's entirely possible that saveable pages are just > zero filled. Since we're already copying pages word-by-word in do_copy_page it > becomes almost free to determine if a page was completely filled with zeros. > > This change introduces a new bitmap which will track these zero pages. If a page > is zero it will not be included in the saved image, instead to track these zero > pages in the image file we will introduce a new flag which we will set on the > packed PFN list. When reading back in the image file we will detect these zero > page PFNs and rebuild the zero page bitmap. > > When the image is being loaded through calls to write_next_page if we encounter > a zero page we will silently memset it to 0 and then continue on to the next > page. Given the implementation in snapshot_read_next/snapshot_write_next this > change will be transparent to non-compressed/compressed and swsusp modes of > operation. > > To provide some concrete numbers from simple ad-hoc testing, on a device which > was lightly in use we saw that: > > PM: hibernation: Image created (964408 pages copied, 548304 zero pages) > > Of the approximately 6.2GB of saveable pages 2.2GB (36%) were just zero filled > and could be tracked entirely within the packed PFN list. The savings would > obviously be much lower for lzo compressed images, but even in the case of > compression not copying pages across to the compression threads will still > speed things up. It's also possible that we would see better overall compression > ratios as larger regions of "real data" would improve the compressibility. > > Finally, such an approach could dramatically improve swsusp performance > as each one of those zero pages requires a write syscall to reload, by > handling it as part of the packed PFN list we're able to fully avoid > that. > > Patch v2 -> v3: > - Use nr_zero_pages rather than walking each pfn to count. > - Make sure zero_bm is allocated in safe pages on resume. > When reading in the pfn list and building the zero page bm > we don't know which pages are unsafe yet so we will need to > copy this bm to safe pages after the metadata has been read. > > Patch v1 -> v2: > - minor code mistake from rebasing corrected. > > Signed-off-by: Brian Geffon <bgeffon@google.com> > --- > kernel/power/snapshot.c | 169 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 133 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/power/snapshot.c b/kernel/power/snapshot.c > index cd8b7b35f1e8b..a2c4fe17f9067 100644 > --- a/kernel/power/snapshot.c > +++ b/kernel/power/snapshot.c
...
> @@ -1371,14 +1381,18 @@ static unsigned int count_data_pages(void) > > /* > * This is needed, because copy_page and memcpy are not usable for copying > - * task structs. > + * task structs. Returns 1 if a page was filled with only zeros, otherwise 0.
nit: s/a page/the page/
> */ > -static inline void do_copy_page(long *dst, long *src) > +static inline int do_copy_page(long *dst, long *src) > { > int n; > + long z = 0; > > - for (n = PAGE_SIZE / sizeof(long); n; n--) > + for (n = PAGE_SIZE / sizeof(long); n; n--) { > + z |= *src; > *dst++ = *src++; > + } > + return !z; > }
...
> -static inline void copy_data_page(unsigned long dst_pfn, unsigned long src_pfn) > +static inline int copy_data_page(unsigned long dst_pfn, unsigned long src_pfn) > { > - safe_copy_page(page_address(pfn_to_page(dst_pfn)), > + return safe_copy_page(page_address(pfn_to_page(dst_pfn)), > pfn_to_page(src_pfn)); > } > #endif /* CONFIG_HIGHMEM */ > > static void copy_data_pages(struct memory_bitmap *copy_bm, > - struct memory_bitmap *orig_bm) > + struct memory_bitmap *orig_bm, > + struct memory_bitmap *zero_bm, > + unsigned int *zero_count) > { > struct zone *zone; > - unsigned long pfn; > + unsigned long pfn, copy_pfn; > > for_each_populated_zone(zone) { > unsigned long max_zone_pfn; > @@ -1462,11 +1482,20 @@ static void copy_data_pages(struct memory_bitmap *copy_bm, > } > memory_bm_position_reset(orig_bm); > memory_bm_position_reset(copy_bm); > + copy_pfn = memory_bm_next_pfn(copy_bm); > for(;;) { > pfn = memory_bm_next_pfn(orig_bm); > if (unlikely(pfn == BM_END_OF_MAP)) > break; > - copy_data_page(memory_bm_next_pfn(copy_bm), pfn); > + if (copy_data_page(copy_pfn, pfn)) { > + memory_bm_set_bit(zero_bm, pfn); > + if (zero_count)
This check is not needed. The function is called only once, with a pointer. The kernel trusts itself if the pointer is supposed to be always != NULL.
Or better: use a local counter and have copy_data_pages() return the number of pages that were actually copied, which is what the caller is interested in.
> + (*zero_count)++; > + > + /* We will reuse this copy_pfn for a real 'nonzero' page. */ > + continue; > + } > + copy_pfn = memory_bm_next_pfn(copy_bm); > } > }
...
> @@ -2247,24 +2299,34 @@ static int load_header(struct swsusp_info *info) > * unpack_orig_pfns - Set bits corresponding to given PFNs in a memory bitmap. > * @bm: Memory bitmap. > * @buf: Area of memory containing the PFNs. > + * @zero_bm: Memory bitmap which will be populated with the PFNs of zero pages. > * > * For each element of the array pointed to by @buf (1 page at a time), set the > - * corresponding bit in @bm. > + * corresponding bit in @bm. If the the page was originally populated with only > + * zeros then a corresponding bit will also be set in @zero_bm.
s/the the/the/
...
> @@ -2486,6 +2548,7 @@ static inline void free_highmem_data(void) {} > * prepare_image - Make room for loading hibernation image. > * @new_bm: Uninitialized memory bitmap structure. > * @bm: Memory bitmap with unsafe pages marked. > + * @zero_bm: Memory bitmap containing the zero pages.
That sounds as if the memory bitmap actually contained zero pages. I suggest to change it to something like the comment for 'bm' above, i.e. "... with zero pages marked"
> * > * Use @bm to mark the pages that will be overwritten in the process of > * restoring the system memory state from the suspend image ("unsafe" pages) > @@ -2496,8 +2559,12 @@ static inline void free_highmem_data(void) {} > * pages will be used for just yet. Instead, we mark them all as allocated and > * create a lists of "safe" pages to be used later. On systems with high > * memory a list of "safe" highmem pages is created too. > + * > + * Because we didn't know which pages were unsafe when we created the zero bm we > + * will make a copy of it and recreate it within safe pages.
nit: s/we will make/we make/
> */ > -static int prepare_image(struct memory_bitmap *new_bm, struct memory_bitmap *bm) > +static int prepare_image(struct memory_bitmap *new_bm, struct memory_bitmap *bm, > + struct memory_bitmap *zero_bm) > { > unsigned int nr_pages, nr_highmem; > struct linked_page *lp; > @@ -2516,6 +2583,20 @@ static int prepare_image(struct memory_bitmap *new_bm, struct memory_bitmap *bm) > > duplicate_memory_bitmap(new_bm, bm); > memory_bm_free(bm, PG_UNSAFE_KEEP); > + error = memory_bm_create(bm, GFP_ATOMIC, PG_ANY); > + if (error) > + goto Free; > + > + /* use bm as storage while we rebuild zero_bm using safe pages */
Re-using the 'bm' parameter is confusing, it should be avoided IMO unless there is a real benefit. struct memory_bitmap isn't that big, why not create a local variable 'zero_mb_tmp' or similar as a temporary store for the zero page bitmap?
> + duplicate_memory_bitmap(bm, zero_bm); > + memory_bm_free(zero_bm, PG_UNSAFE_KEEP); > + error = memory_bm_create(zero_bm, GFP_ATOMIC, PG_SAFE); > + if (error) > + goto Free; > + duplicate_memory_bitmap(zero_bm, bm); > + memory_bm_free(bm, PG_UNSAFE_KEEP); > + /* at this point zero_bm is in safe pages and we can use it while restoring */ > + > if (nr_highmem > 0) { > error = prepare_highmem_image(bm, &nr_highmem); > if (error)
| |