2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-01-18 17:42:33 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2006-01-11 12:17:46 -08:00
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-03-23 02:59:59 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2006-01-18 17:42:33 -08:00
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
2006-01-18 17:42:33 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[PATCH] mm: split page table lock
Christoph Lameter demonstrated very poor scalability on the SGI 512-way, with
a many-threaded application which concurrently initializes different parts of
a large anonymous area.
This patch corrects that, by using a separate spinlock per page table page, to
guard the page table entries in that page, instead of using the mm's single
page_table_lock. (But even then, page_table_lock is still used to guard page
table allocation, and anon_vma allocation.)
In this implementation, the spinlock is tucked inside the struct page of the
page table page: with a BUILD_BUG_ON in case it overflows - which it would in
the case of 32-bit PA-RISC with spinlock debugging enabled.
Splitting the lock is not quite for free: another cacheline access. Ideally,
I suppose we would use split ptlock only for multi-threaded processes on
multi-cpu machines; but deciding that dynamically would have its own costs.
So for now enable it by config, at some number of cpus - since the Kconfig
language doesn't support inequalities, let preprocessor compare that with
NR_CPUS. But I don't think it's worth being user-configurable: for good
testing of both split and unsplit configs, split now at 4 cpus, and perhaps
change that to 8 later.
There is a benefit even for singly threaded processes: kswapd can be attacking
one part of the mm while another part is busy faulting.
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-10-29 18:16:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[PATCH] mm: split page table lock
Christoph Lameter demonstrated very poor scalability on the SGI 512-way, with
a many-threaded application which concurrently initializes different parts of
a large anonymous area.
This patch corrects that, by using a separate spinlock per page table page, to
guard the page table entries in that page, instead of using the mm's single
page_table_lock. (But even then, page_table_lock is still used to guard page
table allocation, and anon_vma allocation.)
In this implementation, the spinlock is tucked inside the struct page of the
page table page: with a BUILD_BUG_ON in case it overflows - which it would in
the case of 32-bit PA-RISC with spinlock debugging enabled.
Splitting the lock is not quite for free: another cacheline access. Ideally,
I suppose we would use split ptlock only for multi-threaded processes on
multi-cpu machines; but deciding that dynamically would have its own costs.
So for now enable it by config, at some number of cpus - since the Kconfig
language doesn't support inequalities, let preprocessor compare that with
NR_CPUS. But I don't think it's worth being user-configurable: for good
testing of both split and unsplit configs, split now at 4 cpus, and perhaps
change that to 8 later.
There is a benefit even for singly threaded processes: kswapd can be attacking
one part of the mm while another part is busy faulting.
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-10-29 18:16:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-05-16 21:53:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:35 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[PATCH] swap: scan_swap_map drop swap_device_lock
get_swap_page has often shown up on latency traces, doing lengthy scans while
holding two spinlocks. swap_list_lock is already dropped, now scan_swap_map
drop swap_device_lock before scanning the swap_map.
While scanning for an empty cluster, don't worry that racing tasks may
allocate what was free and free what was allocated; but when allocating an
entry, check it's still free after retaking the lock. Avoid dropping the lock
in the expected common path. No barriers beyond the locks, just let the
cookie crumble; highest_bit limit is volatile, but benign.
Guard against swapoff: must check SWP_WRITEOK before allocating, must raise
SWP_SCANNING reference count while in scan_swap_map, swapoff wait for that to
fall - just use schedule_timeout, we don't want to burden scan_swap_map
itself, and it's very unlikely that anyone can really still be in
scan_swap_map once swapoff gets this far.
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 15:54:39 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:38 -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
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:38 -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
|
|
|
|
2006-03-22 00:09:09 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:38 -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
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[PATCH] swap: scan_swap_map drop swap_device_lock
get_swap_page has often shown up on latency traces, doing lengthy scans while
holding two spinlocks. swap_list_lock is already dropped, now scan_swap_map
drop swap_device_lock before scanning the swap_map.
While scanning for an empty cluster, don't worry that racing tasks may
allocate what was free and free what was allocated; but when allocating an
entry, check it's still free after retaking the lock. Avoid dropping the lock
in the expected common path. No barriers beyond the locks, just let the
cookie crumble; highest_bit limit is volatile, but benign.
Guard against swapoff: must check SWP_WRITEOK before allocating, must raise
SWP_SCANNING reference count while in scan_swap_map, swapoff wait for that to
fall - just use schedule_timeout, we don't want to burden scan_swap_map
itself, and it's very unlikely that anyone can really still be in
scan_swap_map once swapoff gets this far.
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 15:54:39 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[PATCH] swap: scan_swap_map drop swap_device_lock
get_swap_page has often shown up on latency traces, doing lengthy scans while
holding two spinlocks. swap_list_lock is already dropped, now scan_swap_map
drop swap_device_lock before scanning the swap_map.
While scanning for an empty cluster, don't worry that racing tasks may
allocate what was free and free what was allocated; but when allocating an
entry, check it's still free after retaking the lock. Avoid dropping the lock
in the expected common path. No barriers beyond the locks, just let the
cookie crumble; highest_bit limit is volatile, but benign.
Guard against swapoff: must check SWP_WRITEOK before allocating, must raise
SWP_SCANNING reference count while in scan_swap_map, swapoff wait for that to
fall - just use schedule_timeout, we don't want to burden scan_swap_map
itself, and it's very unlikely that anyone can really still be in
scan_swap_map once swapoff gets this far.
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 15:54:39 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
|
[PATCH] swap: scan_swap_map drop swap_device_lock
get_swap_page has often shown up on latency traces, doing lengthy scans while
holding two spinlocks. swap_list_lock is already dropped, now scan_swap_map
drop swap_device_lock before scanning the swap_map.
While scanning for an empty cluster, don't worry that racing tasks may
allocate what was free and free what was allocated; but when allocating an
entry, check it's still free after retaking the lock. Avoid dropping the lock
in the expected common path. No barriers beyond the locks, just let the
cookie crumble; highest_bit limit is volatile, but benign.
Guard against swapoff: must check SWP_WRITEOK before allocating, must raise
SWP_SCANNING reference count while in scan_swap_map, swapoff wait for that to
fall - just use schedule_timeout, we don't want to burden scan_swap_map
itself, and it's very unlikely that anyone can really still be in
scan_swap_map once swapoff gets this far.
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 15:54:39 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:38 -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
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
|
[PATCH] swap: scan_swap_map drop swap_device_lock
get_swap_page has often shown up on latency traces, doing lengthy scans while
holding two spinlocks. swap_list_lock is already dropped, now scan_swap_map
drop swap_device_lock before scanning the swap_map.
While scanning for an empty cluster, don't worry that racing tasks may
allocate what was free and free what was allocated; but when allocating an
entry, check it's still free after retaking the lock. Avoid dropping the lock
in the expected common path. No barriers beyond the locks, just let the
cookie crumble; highest_bit limit is volatile, but benign.
Guard against swapoff: must check SWP_WRITEOK before allocating, must raise
SWP_SCANNING reference count while in scan_swap_map, swapoff wait for that to
fall - just use schedule_timeout, we don't want to burden scan_swap_map
itself, and it's very unlikely that anyone can really still be in
scan_swap_map once swapoff gets this far.
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 15:54:39 -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
|
|
|
|
[PATCH] swap: scan_swap_map drop swap_device_lock
get_swap_page has often shown up on latency traces, doing lengthy scans while
holding two spinlocks. swap_list_lock is already dropped, now scan_swap_map
drop swap_device_lock before scanning the swap_map.
While scanning for an empty cluster, don't worry that racing tasks may
allocate what was free and free what was allocated; but when allocating an
entry, check it's still free after retaking the lock. Avoid dropping the lock
in the expected common path. No barriers beyond the locks, just let the
cookie crumble; highest_bit limit is volatile, but benign.
Guard against swapoff: must check SWP_WRITEOK before allocating, must raise
SWP_SCANNING reference count while in scan_swap_map, swapoff wait for that to
fall - just use schedule_timeout, we don't want to burden scan_swap_map
itself, and it's very unlikely that anyone can really still be in
scan_swap_map once swapoff gets this far.
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 15:54:39 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:38 -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
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:38 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[PATCH] swap: scan_swap_map drop swap_device_lock
get_swap_page has often shown up on latency traces, doing lengthy scans while
holding two spinlocks. swap_list_lock is already dropped, now scan_swap_map
drop swap_device_lock before scanning the swap_map.
While scanning for an empty cluster, don't worry that racing tasks may
allocate what was free and free what was allocated; but when allocating an
entry, check it's still free after retaking the lock. Avoid dropping the lock
in the expected common path. No barriers beyond the locks, just let the
cookie crumble; highest_bit limit is volatile, but benign.
Guard against swapoff: must check SWP_WRITEOK before allocating, must raise
SWP_SCANNING reference count while in scan_swap_map, swapoff wait for that to
fall - just use schedule_timeout, we don't want to burden scan_swap_map
itself, and it's very unlikely that anyone can really still be in
scan_swap_map once swapoff gets this far.
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 15:54:39 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:37 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:37 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:37 -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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:37 -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
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:37 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:37 -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
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:37 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-01-06 00:16:37 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[PATCH] can_share_swap_page: use page_mapcount
Remember that ironic get_user_pages race? when the raised page_count on a
page swapped out led do_wp_page to decide that it had to copy on write, so
substituted a different page into userspace. 2.6.7 onwards have Andrea's
solution, where try_to_unmap_one backs out if it finds page_count raised.
Which works, but is unsatisfying (rmap.c has no other page_count heuristics),
and was found a few months ago to hang an intensive page migration test. A
year ago I was hesitant to engage page_mapcount, now it seems the right fix.
So remove the page_count hack from try_to_unmap_one; and use activate_page in
unuse_mm when dropping lock, to replace its secondary effect of helping
swapoff to make progress in that case.
Simplify can_share_swap_page (now called only on anonymous pages) to check
page_mapcount + page_swapcount == 1: still needs the page lock to stabilize
their (pessimistic) sum, but does not need swapper_space.tree_lock for that.
In do_swap_page, move swap_free and unlock_page below page_add_anon_rmap, to
keep sum on the high side, and correct when can_share_swap_page called.
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-06-21 17:15:12 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
[PATCH] can_share_swap_page: use page_mapcount
Remember that ironic get_user_pages race? when the raised page_count on a
page swapped out led do_wp_page to decide that it had to copy on write, so
substituted a different page into userspace. 2.6.7 onwards have Andrea's
solution, where try_to_unmap_one backs out if it finds page_count raised.
Which works, but is unsatisfying (rmap.c has no other page_count heuristics),
and was found a few months ago to hang an intensive page migration test. A
year ago I was hesitant to engage page_mapcount, now it seems the right fix.
So remove the page_count hack from try_to_unmap_one; and use activate_page in
unuse_mm when dropping lock, to replace its secondary effect of helping
swapoff to make progress in that case.
Simplify can_share_swap_page (now called only on anonymous pages) to check
page_mapcount + page_swapcount == 1: still needs the page lock to stabilize
their (pessimistic) sum, but does not need swapper_space.tree_lock for that.
In do_swap_page, move swap_free and unlock_page below page_add_anon_rmap, to
keep sum on the high side, and correct when can_share_swap_page called.
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-06-21 17:15:12 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
[PATCH] can_share_swap_page: use page_mapcount
Remember that ironic get_user_pages race? when the raised page_count on a
page swapped out led do_wp_page to decide that it had to copy on write, so
substituted a different page into userspace. 2.6.7 onwards have Andrea's
solution, where try_to_unmap_one backs out if it finds page_count raised.
Which works, but is unsatisfying (rmap.c has no other page_count heuristics),
and was found a few months ago to hang an intensive page migration test. A
year ago I was hesitant to engage page_mapcount, now it seems the right fix.
So remove the page_count hack from try_to_unmap_one; and use activate_page in
unuse_mm when dropping lock, to replace its secondary effect of helping
swapoff to make progress in that case.
Simplify can_share_swap_page (now called only on anonymous pages) to check
page_mapcount + page_swapcount == 1: still needs the page lock to stabilize
their (pessimistic) sum, but does not need swapper_space.tree_lock for that.
In do_swap_page, move swap_free and unlock_page below page_add_anon_rmap, to
keep sum on the high side, and correct when can_share_swap_page called.
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-06-21 17:15:12 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[PATCH] mm: split page table lock
Christoph Lameter demonstrated very poor scalability on the SGI 512-way, with
a many-threaded application which concurrently initializes different parts of
a large anonymous area.
This patch corrects that, by using a separate spinlock per page table page, to
guard the page table entries in that page, instead of using the mm's single
page_table_lock. (But even then, page_table_lock is still used to guard page
table allocation, and anon_vma allocation.)
In this implementation, the spinlock is tucked inside the struct page of the
page table page: with a BUILD_BUG_ON in case it overflows - which it would in
the case of 32-bit PA-RISC with spinlock debugging enabled.
Splitting the lock is not quite for free: another cacheline access. Ideally,
I suppose we would use split ptlock only for multi-threaded processes on
multi-cpu machines; but deciding that dynamically would have its own costs.
So for now enable it by config, at some number of cpus - since the Kconfig
language doesn't support inequalities, let preprocessor compare that with
NR_CPUS. But I don't think it's worth being user-configurable: for good
testing of both split and unsplit configs, split now at 4 cpus, and perhaps
change that to 8 later.
There is a benefit even for singly threaded processes: kswapd can be attacking
one part of the mm while another part is busy faulting.
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-10-29 18:16:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[PATCH] can_share_swap_page: use page_mapcount
Remember that ironic get_user_pages race? when the raised page_count on a
page swapped out led do_wp_page to decide that it had to copy on write, so
substituted a different page into userspace. 2.6.7 onwards have Andrea's
solution, where try_to_unmap_one backs out if it finds page_count raised.
Which works, but is unsatisfying (rmap.c has no other page_count heuristics),
and was found a few months ago to hang an intensive page migration test. A
year ago I was hesitant to engage page_mapcount, now it seems the right fix.
So remove the page_count hack from try_to_unmap_one; and use activate_page in
unuse_mm when dropping lock, to replace its secondary effect of helping
swapoff to make progress in that case.
Simplify can_share_swap_page (now called only on anonymous pages) to check
page_mapcount + page_swapcount == 1: still needs the page lock to stabilize
their (pessimistic) sum, but does not need swapper_space.tree_lock for that.
In do_swap_page, move swap_free and unlock_page below page_add_anon_rmap, to
keep sum on the high side, and correct when can_share_swap_page called.
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-06-21 17:15:12 -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
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
[PATCH] can_share_swap_page: use page_mapcount
Remember that ironic get_user_pages race? when the raised page_count on a
page swapped out led do_wp_page to decide that it had to copy on write, so
substituted a different page into userspace. 2.6.7 onwards have Andrea's
solution, where try_to_unmap_one backs out if it finds page_count raised.
Which works, but is unsatisfying (rmap.c has no other page_count heuristics),
and was found a few months ago to hang an intensive page migration test. A
year ago I was hesitant to engage page_mapcount, now it seems the right fix.
So remove the page_count hack from try_to_unmap_one; and use activate_page in
unuse_mm when dropping lock, to replace its secondary effect of helping
swapoff to make progress in that case.
Simplify can_share_swap_page (now called only on anonymous pages) to check
page_mapcount + page_swapcount == 1: still needs the page lock to stabilize
their (pessimistic) sum, but does not need swapper_space.tree_lock for that.
In do_swap_page, move swap_free and unlock_page below page_add_anon_rmap, to
keep sum on the high side, and correct when can_share_swap_page called.
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-06-21 17:15:12 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[PATCH] can_share_swap_page: use page_mapcount
Remember that ironic get_user_pages race? when the raised page_count on a
page swapped out led do_wp_page to decide that it had to copy on write, so
substituted a different page into userspace. 2.6.7 onwards have Andrea's
solution, where try_to_unmap_one backs out if it finds page_count raised.
Which works, but is unsatisfying (rmap.c has no other page_count heuristics),
and was found a few months ago to hang an intensive page migration test. A
year ago I was hesitant to engage page_mapcount, now it seems the right fix.
So remove the page_count hack from try_to_unmap_one; and use activate_page in
unuse_mm when dropping lock, to replace its secondary effect of helping
swapoff to make progress in that case.
Simplify can_share_swap_page (now called only on anonymous pages) to check
page_mapcount + page_swapcount == 1: still needs the page lock to stabilize
their (pessimistic) sum, but does not need swapper_space.tree_lock for that.
In do_swap_page, move swap_free and unlock_page below page_add_anon_rmap, to
keep sum on the high side, and correct when can_share_swap_page called.
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-06-21 17:15:12 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[PATCH] mm: split page table lock
Christoph Lameter demonstrated very poor scalability on the SGI 512-way, with
a many-threaded application which concurrently initializes different parts of
a large anonymous area.
This patch corrects that, by using a separate spinlock per page table page, to
guard the page table entries in that page, instead of using the mm's single
page_table_lock. (But even then, page_table_lock is still used to guard page
table allocation, and anon_vma allocation.)
In this implementation, the spinlock is tucked inside the struct page of the
page table page: with a BUILD_BUG_ON in case it overflows - which it would in
the case of 32-bit PA-RISC with spinlock debugging enabled.
Splitting the lock is not quite for free: another cacheline access. Ideally,
I suppose we would use split ptlock only for multi-threaded processes on
multi-cpu machines; but deciding that dynamically would have its own costs.
So for now enable it by config, at some number of cpus - since the Kconfig
language doesn't support inequalities, let preprocessor compare that with
NR_CPUS. But I don't think it's worth being user-configurable: for good
testing of both split and unsplit configs, split now at 4 cpus, and perhaps
change that to 8 later.
There is a benefit even for singly threaded processes: kswapd can be attacking
one part of the mm while another part is busy faulting.
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-10-29 18:16:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[PATCH] Swapless page migration: add R/W migration entries
Implement read/write migration ptes
We take the upper two swapfiles for the two types of migration ptes and define
a series of macros in swapops.h.
The VM is modified to handle the migration entries. migration entries can
only be encountered when the page they are pointing to is locked. This limits
the number of places one has to fix. We also check in copy_pte_range and in
mprotect_pte_range() for migration ptes.
We check for migration ptes in do_swap_cache and call a function that will
then wait on the page lock. This allows us to effectively stop all accesses
to apge.
Migration entries are created by try_to_unmap if called for migration and
removed by local functions in migrate.c
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Several times while testing swapless page migration (I've no NUMA, just
hacking it up to migrate recklessly while running load), I've hit the
BUG_ON(!PageLocked(p)) in migration_entry_to_page.
This comes from an orphaned migration entry, unrelated to the current
correctly locked migration, but hit by remove_anon_migration_ptes as it
checks an address in each vma of the anon_vma list.
Such an orphan may be left behind if an earlier migration raced with fork:
copy_one_pte can duplicate a migration entry from parent to child, after
remove_anon_migration_ptes has checked the child vma, but before it has
removed it from the parent vma. (If the process were later to fault on this
orphaned entry, it would hit the same BUG from migration_entry_wait.)
This could be fixed by locking anon_vma in copy_one_pte, but we'd rather
not. There's no such problem with file pages, because vma_prio_tree_add
adds child vma after parent vma, and the page table locking at each end is
enough to serialize. Follow that example with anon_vma: add new vmas to the
tail instead of the head.
(There's no corresponding problem when inserting migration entries,
because a missed pte will leave the page count and mapcount high, which is
allowed for. And there's no corresponding problem when migrating via swap,
because a leftover swap entry will be correctly faulted. But the swapless
method has no refcounting of its entries.)
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
pte_unmap_unlock() takes the pte pointer as an argument.
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Several times while testing swapless page migration, gcc has tried to exec
a pointer instead of a string: smells like COW mappings are not being
properly write-protected on fork.
The protection in copy_one_pte looks very convincing, until at last you
realize that the second arg to make_migration_entry is a boolean "write",
and SWP_MIGRATION_READ is 30.
Anyway, it's better done like in change_pte_range, using
is_write_migration_entry and make_migration_entry_read.
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Remove unnecessary obfuscation from sys_swapon's range check on swap type,
which blew up causing memory corruption once swapless migration made
MAX_SWAPFILES no longer 2 ^ MAX_SWAPFILES_SHIFT.
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Acked-by: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <clameter@engr.sgi.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-23 02:03:35 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-03-31 02:29:56 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[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
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-03-31 02:29:56 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-03-23 02:59:59 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-12-06 20:34:07 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2006-03-23 02:59:59 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2006-12-06 20:34:07 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-03-23 02:59:59 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2007-01-05 16:36:28 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2006-03-23 02:59:59 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2006-12-06 20:34:07 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2006-03-23 02:59:59 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-12-06 20:34:07 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-03-23 02:59:59 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-12-06 20:34:07 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2006-03-23 02:59:59 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2006-12-06 20:34:07 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2006-03-23 02:59:59 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-27 01:23:25 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2006-12-06 20:34:07 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2007-01-05 16:36:28 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-03-23 03:00:03 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-12-06 20:34:07 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-01-05 16:36:28 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-12-06 20:34:07 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-03-23 02:59:59 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-12-06 20:34:07 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-03-23 02:59:59 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-10-29 18:15:55 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-10-29 18:16:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-10-29 18:16:27 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-10-29 18:16:27 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-10-29 18:16:27 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-10-29 18:16:27 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[PATCH] can_share_swap_page: use page_mapcount
Remember that ironic get_user_pages race? when the raised page_count on a
page swapped out led do_wp_page to decide that it had to copy on write, so
substituted a different page into userspace. 2.6.7 onwards have Andrea's
solution, where try_to_unmap_one backs out if it finds page_count raised.
Which works, but is unsatisfying (rmap.c has no other page_count heuristics),
and was found a few months ago to hang an intensive page migration test. A
year ago I was hesitant to engage page_mapcount, now it seems the right fix.
So remove the page_count hack from try_to_unmap_one; and use activate_page in
unuse_mm when dropping lock, to replace its secondary effect of helping
swapoff to make progress in that case.
Simplify can_share_swap_page (now called only on anonymous pages) to check
page_mapcount + page_swapcount == 1: still needs the page lock to stabilize
their (pessimistic) sum, but does not need swapper_space.tree_lock for that.
In do_swap_page, move swap_free and unlock_page below page_add_anon_rmap, to
keep sum on the high side, and correct when can_share_swap_page called.
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-06-21 17:15:12 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
[PATCH] can_share_swap_page: use page_mapcount
Remember that ironic get_user_pages race? when the raised page_count on a
page swapped out led do_wp_page to decide that it had to copy on write, so
substituted a different page into userspace. 2.6.7 onwards have Andrea's
solution, where try_to_unmap_one backs out if it finds page_count raised.
Which works, but is unsatisfying (rmap.c has no other page_count heuristics),
and was found a few months ago to hang an intensive page migration test. A
year ago I was hesitant to engage page_mapcount, now it seems the right fix.
So remove the page_count hack from try_to_unmap_one; and use activate_page in
unuse_mm when dropping lock, to replace its secondary effect of helping
swapoff to make progress in that case.
Simplify can_share_swap_page (now called only on anonymous pages) to check
page_mapcount + page_swapcount == 1: still needs the page lock to stabilize
their (pessimistic) sum, but does not need swapper_space.tree_lock for that.
In do_swap_page, move swap_free and unlock_page below page_add_anon_rmap, to
keep sum on the high side, and correct when can_share_swap_page called.
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-06-21 17:15:12 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:35 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:35 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:35 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-06-23 02:03:44 -07:00
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-12-06 20:34:10 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:31 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[PATCH] mm: split page table lock
Christoph Lameter demonstrated very poor scalability on the SGI 512-way, with
a many-threaded application which concurrently initializes different parts of
a large anonymous area.
This patch corrects that, by using a separate spinlock per page table page, to
guard the page table entries in that page, instead of using the mm's single
page_table_lock. (But even then, page_table_lock is still used to guard page
table allocation, and anon_vma allocation.)
In this implementation, the spinlock is tucked inside the struct page of the
page table page: with a BUILD_BUG_ON in case it overflows - which it would in
the case of 32-bit PA-RISC with spinlock debugging enabled.
Splitting the lock is not quite for free: another cacheline access. Ideally,
I suppose we would use split ptlock only for multi-threaded processes on
multi-cpu machines; but deciding that dynamically would have its own costs.
So for now enable it by config, at some number of cpus - since the Kconfig
language doesn't support inequalities, let preprocessor compare that with
NR_CPUS. But I don't think it's worth being user-configurable: for good
testing of both split and unsplit configs, split now at 4 cpus, and perhaps
change that to 8 later.
There is a benefit even for singly threaded processes: kswapd can be attacking
one part of the mm while another part is busy faulting.
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-10-29 18:16:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:37 -07:00
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[PATCH] swap: scan_swap_map drop swap_device_lock
get_swap_page has often shown up on latency traces, doing lengthy scans while
holding two spinlocks. swap_list_lock is already dropped, now scan_swap_map
drop swap_device_lock before scanning the swap_map.
While scanning for an empty cluster, don't worry that racing tasks may
allocate what was free and free what was allocated; but when allocating an
entry, check it's still free after retaking the lock. Avoid dropping the lock
in the expected common path. No barriers beyond the locks, just let the
cookie crumble; highest_bit limit is volatile, but benign.
Guard against swapoff: must check SWP_WRITEOK before allocating, must raise
SWP_SCANNING reference count while in scan_swap_map, swapoff wait for that to
fall - just use schedule_timeout, we don't want to burden scan_swap_map
itself, and it's very unlikely that anyone can really still be in
scan_swap_map once swapoff gets this far.
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 15:54:39 -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
|
|
|
|
2006-01-18 17:42:33 -08:00
|
|
|
|
[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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[PATCH] swap: scan_swap_map drop swap_device_lock
get_swap_page has often shown up on latency traces, doing lengthy scans while
holding two spinlocks. swap_list_lock is already dropped, now scan_swap_map
drop swap_device_lock before scanning the swap_map.
While scanning for an empty cluster, don't worry that racing tasks may
allocate what was free and free what was allocated; but when allocating an
entry, check it's still free after retaking the lock. Avoid dropping the lock
in the expected common path. No barriers beyond the locks, just let the
cookie crumble; highest_bit limit is volatile, but benign.
Guard against swapoff: must check SWP_WRITEOK before allocating, must raise
SWP_SCANNING reference count while in scan_swap_map, swapoff wait for that to
fall - just use schedule_timeout, we don't want to burden scan_swap_map
itself, and it's very unlikely that anyone can really still be in
scan_swap_map once swapoff gets this far.
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 15:54:39 -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
|
|
|
|
2005-09-10 00:27:25 -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
|
|
|
|
[PATCH] swap: scan_swap_map drop swap_device_lock
get_swap_page has often shown up on latency traces, doing lengthy scans while
holding two spinlocks. swap_list_lock is already dropped, now scan_swap_map
drop swap_device_lock before scanning the swap_map.
While scanning for an empty cluster, don't worry that racing tasks may
allocate what was free and free what was allocated; but when allocating an
entry, check it's still free after retaking the lock. Avoid dropping the lock
in the expected common path. No barriers beyond the locks, just let the
cookie crumble; highest_bit limit is volatile, but benign.
Guard against swapoff: must check SWP_WRITEOK before allocating, must raise
SWP_SCANNING reference count while in scan_swap_map, swapoff wait for that to
fall - just use schedule_timeout, we don't want to burden scan_swap_map
itself, and it's very unlikely that anyone can really still be in
scan_swap_map once swapoff gets this far.
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 15:54:39 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
2006-01-18 17:42:33 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-01-09 15:59:24 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2006-01-09 15:59:24 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-01-18 17:42:33 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2006-12-06 20:32:28 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-12-06 20:32:28 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-12-06 20:32:28 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-12-06 20:32:28 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-01-18 17:42:33 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-12-06 20:32:28 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-12-08 02:36:44 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:35 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2006-12-08 02:36:44 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-12-06 20:40:36 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-12-06 20:40:36 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:35 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[PATCH] Swapless page migration: add R/W migration entries
Implement read/write migration ptes
We take the upper two swapfiles for the two types of migration ptes and define
a series of macros in swapops.h.
The VM is modified to handle the migration entries. migration entries can
only be encountered when the page they are pointing to is locked. This limits
the number of places one has to fix. We also check in copy_pte_range and in
mprotect_pte_range() for migration ptes.
We check for migration ptes in do_swap_cache and call a function that will
then wait on the page lock. This allows us to effectively stop all accesses
to apge.
Migration entries are created by try_to_unmap if called for migration and
removed by local functions in migrate.c
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Several times while testing swapless page migration (I've no NUMA, just
hacking it up to migrate recklessly while running load), I've hit the
BUG_ON(!PageLocked(p)) in migration_entry_to_page.
This comes from an orphaned migration entry, unrelated to the current
correctly locked migration, but hit by remove_anon_migration_ptes as it
checks an address in each vma of the anon_vma list.
Such an orphan may be left behind if an earlier migration raced with fork:
copy_one_pte can duplicate a migration entry from parent to child, after
remove_anon_migration_ptes has checked the child vma, but before it has
removed it from the parent vma. (If the process were later to fault on this
orphaned entry, it would hit the same BUG from migration_entry_wait.)
This could be fixed by locking anon_vma in copy_one_pte, but we'd rather
not. There's no such problem with file pages, because vma_prio_tree_add
adds child vma after parent vma, and the page table locking at each end is
enough to serialize. Follow that example with anon_vma: add new vmas to the
tail instead of the head.
(There's no corresponding problem when inserting migration entries,
because a missed pte will leave the page count and mapcount high, which is
allowed for. And there's no corresponding problem when migrating via swap,
because a leftover swap entry will be correctly faulted. But the swapless
method has no refcounting of its entries.)
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
pte_unmap_unlock() takes the pte pointer as an argument.
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Several times while testing swapless page migration, gcc has tried to exec
a pointer instead of a string: smells like COW mappings are not being
properly write-protected on fork.
The protection in copy_one_pte looks very convincing, until at last you
realize that the second arg to make_migration_entry is a boolean "write",
and SWP_MIGRATION_READ is 30.
Anyway, it's better done like in change_pte_range, using
is_write_migration_entry and make_migration_entry_read.
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Remove unnecessary obfuscation from sys_swapon's range check on swap type,
which blew up causing memory corruption once swapless migration made
MAX_SWAPFILES no longer 2 ^ MAX_SWAPFILES_SHIFT.
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Acked-by: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <clameter@engr.sgi.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-23 02:03:35 -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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[PATCH] Fix bd_claim() error code.
Problem: In some circumstances, bd_claim() is returning the wrong error
code.
If we try to swapon an unused block device that isn't swap formatted, we
get -EINVAL. But if that same block device is already mounted, we instead
get -EBUSY, even though it still isn't a valid swap device.
This issue came up on the busybox list trying to get the error message
from "swapon -a" right. If a swap device is already enabled, we get -EBUSY,
and we shouldn't report this as an error. But we can't distinguish the two
-EBUSY conditions, which are very different errors.
In the code, bd_claim() returns either 0 or -EBUSY, but in this case busy
means "somebody other than sys_swapon has already claimed this", and
_that_ means this block device can't be a valid swap device. So return
-EINVAL there.
Signed-off-by: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-22 21:44:27 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-01-09 15:59:24 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-06-23 02:05:08 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-01-11 01:50:28 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[PATCH] swap: scan_swap_map drop swap_device_lock
get_swap_page has often shown up on latency traces, doing lengthy scans while
holding two spinlocks. swap_list_lock is already dropped, now scan_swap_map
drop swap_device_lock before scanning the swap_map.
While scanning for an empty cluster, don't worry that racing tasks may
allocate what was free and free what was allocated; but when allocating an
entry, check it's still free after retaking the lock. Avoid dropping the lock
in the expected common path. No barriers beyond the locks, just let the
cookie crumble; highest_bit limit is volatile, but benign.
Guard against swapoff: must check SWP_WRITEOK before allocating, must raise
SWP_SCANNING reference count while in scan_swap_map, swapoff wait for that to
fall - just use schedule_timeout, we don't want to burden scan_swap_map
itself, and it's very unlikely that anyone can really still be in
scan_swap_map once swapoff gets this far.
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 15:54:39 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-12-06 20:33:06 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-01-08 01:00:59 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-01-08 01:00:59 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-01-08 01:00:59 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-01-08 01:00:59 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-01-18 17:42:33 -08:00
|
|
|
|
[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
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:35 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
2006-01-18 17:42:33 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-09-03 15:54:33 -07:00
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-01-09 15:59:24 -08:00
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[PATCH] Swapless page migration: add R/W migration entries
Implement read/write migration ptes
We take the upper two swapfiles for the two types of migration ptes and define
a series of macros in swapops.h.
The VM is modified to handle the migration entries. migration entries can
only be encountered when the page they are pointing to is locked. This limits
the number of places one has to fix. We also check in copy_pte_range and in
mprotect_pte_range() for migration ptes.
We check for migration ptes in do_swap_cache and call a function that will
then wait on the page lock. This allows us to effectively stop all accesses
to apge.
Migration entries are created by try_to_unmap if called for migration and
removed by local functions in migrate.c
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Several times while testing swapless page migration (I've no NUMA, just
hacking it up to migrate recklessly while running load), I've hit the
BUG_ON(!PageLocked(p)) in migration_entry_to_page.
This comes from an orphaned migration entry, unrelated to the current
correctly locked migration, but hit by remove_anon_migration_ptes as it
checks an address in each vma of the anon_vma list.
Such an orphan may be left behind if an earlier migration raced with fork:
copy_one_pte can duplicate a migration entry from parent to child, after
remove_anon_migration_ptes has checked the child vma, but before it has
removed it from the parent vma. (If the process were later to fault on this
orphaned entry, it would hit the same BUG from migration_entry_wait.)
This could be fixed by locking anon_vma in copy_one_pte, but we'd rather
not. There's no such problem with file pages, because vma_prio_tree_add
adds child vma after parent vma, and the page table locking at each end is
enough to serialize. Follow that example with anon_vma: add new vmas to the
tail instead of the head.
(There's no corresponding problem when inserting migration entries,
because a missed pte will leave the page count and mapcount high, which is
allowed for. And there's no corresponding problem when migrating via swap,
because a leftover swap entry will be correctly faulted. But the swapless
method has no refcounting of its entries.)
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
pte_unmap_unlock() takes the pte pointer as an argument.
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Several times while testing swapless page migration, gcc has tried to exec
a pointer instead of a string: smells like COW mappings are not being
properly write-protected on fork.
The protection in copy_one_pte looks very convincing, until at last you
realize that the second arg to make_migration_entry is a boolean "write",
and SWP_MIGRATION_READ is 30.
Anyway, it's better done like in change_pte_range, using
is_write_migration_entry and make_migration_entry_read.
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Remove unnecessary obfuscation from sys_swapon's range check on swap type,
which blew up causing memory corruption once swapless migration made
MAX_SWAPFILES no longer 2 ^ MAX_SWAPFILES_SHIFT.
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Acked-by: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <clameter@engr.sgi.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-23 02:03:35 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-09-29 02:01:26 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-09-29 02:01:26 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2006-09-29 02:01:26 -07:00
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
