[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YNIBb5WPrk8nnKKn@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 15:27:43 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, willy@...radead.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 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 04:20:40PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> and wondering if the iov_iter_fault_in_readable() is actually effective. Yes,
> it can make sure that the page we're intending to modify is dragged into the
> pagecache and marked uptodate so that it can be read from, but is it possible
> for the page to then get reclaimed before we get to
> iov_iter_copy_from_user_atomic()? a_ops->write_begin() could potentially take
> a long time, say if it has to go and get a lock/lease from a server.
Yes, it is. So what? We'll just retry. You *can't* take faults while holding
some pages locked; not without shitloads of deadlocks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists