[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121129003816.GJ18574@lenny.home.zabbo.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:38:16 -0800
From: Zach Brown <zab@...hat.com>
To: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-aio@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, bcrl@...ck.org, jmoyer@...hat.com,
axboe@...nel.dk, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/25] aio: Make aio_read_evt() more efficient
> We can't use cmpxchg() on the ring buffer's head pointer directly, since
> it's modded to nr_events and would be susceptible to ABA. So instead we
> maintain a shadow head that uses the full 32 bits, and cmpxchg() that
> and then updated the real head pointer.
Time to update this comment to reflect the mutex instead of the shadow
head? :)
> + ev = kmap(page);
> + copy_ret = copy_to_user(event + ret, ev + pos, sizeof(*ev) * i);
> + kunmap(page);
For lack of a better time: do we want to bring up the missing
flush_dcache_page() calls around the kernel mappings of ring pages that
are also mapped to user addresses?
> prepare_to_wait_exclusive(&ctx->wait, &wait,
> TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
>
> + ret = aio_read_events(ctx, event + i, nr - i);
> + if (ret < 0)
> break;
As mentioned offlist: we don't want to be blocking under
TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. Is the plan to do a non-blocking check and pop
outside the wait loop to do a blocking copy?
- z
--
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