[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170330184824.GS29622@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 19:48:24 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...il.com>,
Vineet Gupta <vgupta@...opsys.com>,
Steven Miao <realmz6@...il.com>,
Jesper Nilsson <jesper.nilsson@...s.com>,
Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
Richard Kuo <rkuo@...eaurora.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Ley Foon Tan <lftan@...era.com>,
Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>, Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Chen Liqin <liqin.linux@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Guan Xuetao <gxt@...c.pku.edu.cn>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC][CFT][PATCHSET v1] uaccess unification
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:18:23AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> This is all going in the wrong direction entirely.
This is not going into the tree - it's just a "let's check your
theory about might_fault() overhead being the source of slowdown
you are seeing" quick-and-dirty patch.
Speaking of the checks in there - if anything, might_fault() in those
suckers belongs outside of the loop; note that even on the kmap_atomic()
side of copy_page_to_iter_iovec() we do stuff like fault_in_pages_writeable().
BTW, ..._inatomic is a very unfortunate name, IMO - it's *not* safe
to use in atomic contexts as-is, to start with; the caller needs to take
care of pagefault_disable(). If anything, __copy_from_user_nofault() would
probably be better...
I really wonder about the low dispersion in those tests - IME on amd64
boxen it tends to be ~5% or so; what's normal for arm?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists