On 12/09/2012 08:25 PM, Shaohua Li wrote:
swap_lock is heavily contended when I test swap to 3 fast SSD (even slightly slower than swap to 2 such SSD). The main contention comes from swap_info_get(). This patch tries to fix the gap with adding a new per-partition lock. global data like nr_swapfiles, total_swap_pages, least_priority and swap_list are still protected by swap_lock. nr_swap_pages is an atomic now, it can be changed without swap_lock. In theory, it's possible get_swap_page() finds no swap pages but actually there are free swap pages. But sounds not a big problem. accessing partition specific data (like scan_swap_map and so on) is only protected by swap_info_struct.lock. Changing swap_info_struct.flags need hold swap_lock and swap_info_struct.lock, because scan_scan_map() will check it. read the flags is ok with either the locks hold. If both swap_lock and swap_info_struct.lock must be hold, we always hold the former first to avoid deadlock. swap_entry_free() can change swap_list. To delete that code, we add a new highest_priority_index. Whenever get_swap_page() is called, we check it. If it's valid, we use it. It's a pitty get_swap_page() still holds swap_lock(). But in practice, swap_lock() isn't heavily contended in my test with this patch (or I can say there are other much more heavier bottlenecks like TLB flush). And BTW, looks get_swap_page() doesn't really need the lock. We never free swap_info[] and we check SWAP_WRITEOK flag. The only risk without the lock is we could swapout to some low priority swap, but we can quickly recover after several rounds of swap, so sounds not a big deal to me. But I'd prefer to fix this if it's a real problem. Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shli@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>