From 5d337b9194b1ce3b6fd5f3cb2799455ed2f9a3d1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Hugh Dickins Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 15:54:41 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] swap: swap_lock replace list+device 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 Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- mm/rmap.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'mm/rmap.c') diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c index 08ac5c7fa91f..facb8cdca665 100644 --- a/mm/rmap.c +++ b/mm/rmap.c @@ -34,9 +34,8 @@ * anon_vma->lock * mm->page_table_lock * zone->lru_lock (in mark_page_accessed) - * swap_list_lock (in swap_free etc's swap_info_get) + * swap_lock (in swap_duplicate, swap_info_get) * mmlist_lock (in mmput, drain_mmlist and others) - * swap_device_lock (in swap_duplicate, swap_info_get) * mapping->private_lock (in __set_page_dirty_buffers) * inode_lock (in set_page_dirty's __mark_inode_dirty) * sb_lock (within inode_lock in fs/fs-writeback.c) -- cgit v1.2.3-59-g8ed1b