[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>

mm/rmap.c

@@ -34,9 +34,8 @@
  *       anon_vma->lock
  *         mm->page_table_lock
  *           zone->lru_lock (in mark_page_accessed)
- *           swap_list_lock (in swap_free etc's swap_info_get)
+ *           swap_lock (in swap_duplicate, swap_info_get)
  *             mmlist_lock (in mmput, drain_mmlist and others)
- *             swap_device_lock (in swap_duplicate, swap_info_get)
  *             mapping->private_lock (in __set_page_dirty_buffers)
  *             inode_lock (in set_page_dirty's __mark_inode_dirty)
  *               sb_lock (within inode_lock in fs/fs-writeback.c)