[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110309024708.GA4941@fibrous.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 21:47:08 -0500
From: Stephen Wilson <wilsons@...rt.ca>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] enable writing to /proc/pid/mem
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 02:33:04AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 09:15:25PM -0500, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>
> > I think we could also remove the intermediate copy in both mem_read() and
> > mem_write() as well, but I think such optimizations could be left for
> > follow on patches.
>
> How? We do copy_.._user() in there; it can trigger page faults and
> that's not something you want while holding mmap_sem on some mm.
Ah, OK. I did not think thru that subtlety. Was merely mentioning
"things we might do afterwords" as opposed to a genuine proposal.
> Looks like a deadlock country... So we can't do that from inside
> access_process_vm() or its analogs, which means buffering in caller.
Thanks for the feed back -- I am certainly (relatively speaking) new to
the code so your insights are most valuable.
Thanks again!
--
steve
--
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