5d337b9194
The idea of a swap_device_lock per device, and a swap_list_lock over them all, is appealing; but in practice almost every holder of swap_device_lock must already hold swap_list_lock, which defeats the purpose of the split. The only exceptions have been swap_duplicate, valid_swaphandles and an untrodden path in try_to_unuse (plus a few places added in this series). valid_swaphandles doesn't show up high in profiles, but swap_duplicate does demand attention. However, with the hold time in get_swap_pages so much reduced, I've not yet found a load and set of swap device priorities to show even swap_duplicate benefitting from the split. Certainly the split is mere overhead in the common case of a single swap device. So, replace swap_list_lock and swap_device_lock by spinlock_t swap_lock (generally we seem to prefer an _ in the name, and not hide in a macro). If someone can show a regression in swap_duplicate, then probably we should add a hashlock for the swap_map entries alone (shorts being anatomic), so as to help the case of the single swap device too. Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| balance | ||
| hugetlbpage.txt | ||
| locking | ||
| numa | ||
| overcommit-accounting | ||