| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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>
|
