[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3231150.1624384533@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 18:55:33 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Do we need to unrevert "fs: do not prefault sys_write() user buffer pages"?
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> End result: doing the fault_in_readable "unnecessarily" at the
> beginning is likely the better optimization. It's basically free when
> it's not necessary, and it avoids an extra fault (and extra
> lock/unlock and retry) when it does end up faulting pages in.
It may also cause the read in to happen in the background whilst write_begin
is being done.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists