[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgA4_TkMqOw9GwW7aNe3jBU_yBKZkNWTicz=BKap_=siw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 11:32:00 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: 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"?
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 11:23 AM David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Probably the most obvious way would be to set a flag in task_struct saying
> what you're doing and have the point that would otherwise wait for the page to
> become unlocked skip to the fault fixup code if the page is locked after
> ->readahead() has been invoked and the flag is set, then use get_user() in
> iov_iter_fault_in_readable().
Yeah, the existing user access exception handling code _almost_
handles it, except for one thing: you'd need to have some way to
distinguish between "prefetch successful" and "fault failed".
And yeah, I guess it could be a flag in task_struct, but at that point
my gag reflex starts acting up.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists