[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130522101916.GM18810@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 12:19:16 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Hirokazu Takata <takata@...ux-m32r.org>,
Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
Koichi Yasutake <yasutake.koichi@...panasonic.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-m32r@...linux-m32r.org,
linux-m32r-ja@...linux-m32r.org, microblaze-uclinux@...e.uq.edu.au,
linux-am33-list@...hat.com, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] uaccess: better might_sleep/might_fault behavior
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:25:36AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Calling might_fault() for every __get_user/__put_user is rather expensive
> because it turns what should be a single instruction (plus fixup) into an
> external function call.
We could hide it all behind CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP just like
might_sleep() is. I'm not sure there's a point to might_fault() when
might_sleep() is a NOP.
--
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