[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 <hugh@veritas.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
diff --git a/mm/filemap.c b/mm/filemap.c
index c11418d..edc5443 100644
--- a/mm/filemap.c
+++ b/mm/filemap.c
@@ -54,9 +54,8 @@
*
* ->i_mmap_lock (vmtruncate)
* ->private_lock (__free_pte->__set_page_dirty_buffers)
- * ->swap_list_lock
- * ->swap_device_lock (exclusive_swap_page, others)
- * ->mapping->tree_lock
+ * ->swap_lock (exclusive_swap_page, others)
+ * ->mapping->tree_lock
*
* ->i_sem
* ->i_mmap_lock (truncate->unmap_mapping_range)
@@ -86,7 +85,7 @@
* ->page_table_lock (anon_vma_prepare and various)
*
* ->page_table_lock
- * ->swap_device_lock (try_to_unmap_one)
+ * ->swap_lock (try_to_unmap_one)
* ->private_lock (try_to_unmap_one)
* ->tree_lock (try_to_unmap_one)
* ->zone.lru_lock (follow_page->mark_page_accessed)