[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100221203219.B80D.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 20:45:37 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Make copy_from_user() in migrate.c statically predictable
> > On 02/18/2010 03:02 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > >
> > > Hmm. When making simplifications like this, I would really suggest you
> > > also move the declaration of the variable itself into the block where it
> > > is now used, rather than leaving it be function-wide.
> > >
> > > Yes, it's used in the final condition of the for-loop, but that whole loop
> > > is just screwy. The 'err' handling is insane. Sometimes 'err' is a return
> > > value form copy_to/from_user, and sometimes it's a errno. The two are
> > > _not_ the same thing, they don't even have the same type!
> > >
> > > And 'i' is totally useless too.
> > >
> > > So that whole loop should be rewritten.
> > >
> >
> > OK, I was trying to make the minimal set of changes given the late -rc
> > status.
> >
> > > I don't even have page migration enabled, so I haven't even compile-tested
> > > this, but wouldn't something like this work? It's smaller, gets rid of two
> > > pointless variables, and looks simpler to me. Hmm?
> >
> > The code definitely looks cleaner, and it's a much more standard
> > "chunked data loop" form. Weirdly enough, though, gcc 4.4.2 can't
> > figure out the copy_from_user() that way... despite having the same
> > min() structure as my code.
> >
> > However, if I change it to:
> >
> > chunk_nr = nr_pages;
> > if (chunk_nr > DO_PAGES_STAT_CHUNK_NR)
> > chunk_nr = DO_PAGES_STAT_CHUNK_NR;
> >
> > ... then it works!
> >
> > Overall, it looks like gcc is rather fragile with regards to its ability
> > to constant-propagate. It's probably no coincidence that chunked loops
> > is the place where we really have problems with this kind of stuff.
> >
> > Updated patch, which compile-tests for me, attached.
>
> hehe, I'm ESPer. I think you hope I do runtime-test, plz wait 12 hour :-)
sorry for the delay. I had little machine trouble.
Reviewed-and-Tested-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists