This website requires JavaScript.
About
Status
₊˚⊹Discord
Explore
Register
Sign in
Reference in a new issue
Blame
Copy permalink
Reference in a new issue
Copy permalink
kernel
/
linux
Star
0
Fork
You've already forked linux
0
mirror of
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/
synced
2026-09-14 18:22:56 +00:00
Code
Issues
Releases
Packages
Activity
96840aa00a
linux
/
Documentation
/
vm
/
locking
130 lines
6 KiB
Raw
Normal View
History
Linux-2.6.12-rc2 Initial git repository build. I'm not bothering with the full history, even though we have it. We can create a separate "historical" git archive of that later if we want to, and in the meantime it's about 3.2GB when imported into git - space that would just make the early git days unnecessarily complicated, when we don't have a lot of good infrastructure for it. Let it rip!
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
[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>
2005-09-03 15:54:41 -07:00
Linux-2.6.12-rc2 Initial git repository build. I'm not bothering with the full history, even though we have it. We can create a separate "historical" git archive of that later if we want to, and in the meantime it's about 3.2GB when imported into git - space that would just make the early git days unnecessarily complicated, when we don't have a lot of good infrastructure for it. Let it rip!
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
[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>
2005-09-03 15:54:41 -07:00
Linux-2.6.12-rc2 Initial git repository build. I'm not bothering with the full history, even though we have it. We can create a separate "historical" git archive of that later if we want to, and in the meantime it's about 3.2GB when imported into git - space that would just make the early git days unnecessarily complicated, when we don't have a lot of good infrastructure for it. Let it rip!
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
[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>
2005-09-03 15:54:41 -07:00
Linux-2.6.12-rc2 Initial git repository build. I'm not bothering with the full history, even though we have it. We can create a separate "historical" git archive of that later if we want to, and in the meantime it's about 3.2GB when imported into git - space that would just make the early git days unnecessarily complicated, when we don't have a lot of good infrastructure for it. Let it rip!
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
[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>
2005-09-03 15:54:41 -07:00
Linux-2.6.12-rc2 Initial git repository build. I'm not bothering with the full history, even though we have it. We can create a separate "historical" git archive of that later if we want to, and in the meantime it's about 3.2GB when imported into git - space that would just make the early git days unnecessarily complicated, when we don't have a lot of good infrastructure for it. Let it rip!
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
