Re: [PATCH v3] PM: hibernate: don't store zero pages in the image file.

From: Matthias Kaehlcke
Date: Thu Mar 23 2023 - 12:20:10 EST


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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> 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)