[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whd9rDePO5M6roDcxvb9EWNTQ2FuLd3rWKWHQ03FqT2ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2021 11:42:41 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Kmap conversions for 5.12, take 2
On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 8:52 AM David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com> wrote:
>
> Ira Weiny (6):
> mm/highmem: Lift memcpy_[to|from]_page to core
> mm/highmem: Convert memcpy_[to|from]_page() to kmap_local_page()
> mm/highmem: Introduce memcpy_page(), memmove_page(), and memset_page()
> mm/highmem: Add VM_BUG_ON() to mem*_page() calls
> btrfs: use memcpy_[to|from]_page() and kmap_local_page()
> btrfs: use copy_highpage() instead of 2 kmaps()
So I've pulled this now, although I still end up wondering about one case there:
- char *map;
-
- map = kmap(page);
- memcpy(map, data_start, datal);
+ memcpy_to_page(page, 0, data_start, datal);
flush_dcache_page(page);
- kunmap(page);
where that flush_dcache_page() is now done outside the kmap of the page.
If you have an architecture that does both (a) highmem and (b) virtual
caches, it means that the "memcpy_to_page()" gets done using one
virtual address, and the flush_dcache_page() could in theory be done
using another virtual address.
I do not believe this is a problem in practice (flush_dcache_page()
might have to kmap it again, but presumably get the same virtual
address, although who the heck knows). And I personally don't know
that we should even care any more - I've been arguing that we should
start deprecating highmem entirely, and while there are 32-bit arm
chips that still use them, I hope to $DEITY that those ARM chips
aren't the garbage virtual cached ones.
Furthermore, I think that kunmap() always guaranteed that the cache
was flushed anyway before unmapping, because anything else would have
been too broken for words anyway. So I think _all_ of those
flush_dcache_page() cases were just largely bogus.
I can't be bothered to really look into it, because at some point,
crap hardware is just too crap to even care about. Pure virtual caches
are where I personally say "I don't care". But I'm mentioning it
because there might be some masochistic person out there that finds
this issue interesting, and wants to do some self-flagellation to dive
into this all and make sure it's ok.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists