[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whDyrOMJMZBxtTUaMeuSd_dafiR_DFCwsLSbJuLwEuYsw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 11:57:10 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
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 11:51 AM Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com> wrote:
> Just reminding the alternative (in the RFC that I mentioned before):
> a vDSO exception table entry for a memory accessing function in the
> vDSO. It then behaves as a sort of MADV_WILLNEED for the faulting
> page if an exception is triggered. Unlike MADV_WILLNEED it maps the
> page if no IO is needed. It can return through a register whether
> the page was present or not.
Yeah, that looks like a user-space equivalent.
And thanks to the vdso, it doesn't need to support all architectures.
Unlike a kernel model would (but yes, a kernel model could then have a
fallback for the non-prefetching synchronous case instead, so I guess
we could just do one architecture at a time).
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists