[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <437C30AA-2256-4F4F-9CC0-363A21DB1044@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 11:16:03 -0700
From: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Do we need to unrevert "fs: do not prefault sys_write() user
buffer pages"?
> On Jun 22, 2021, at 11:07 AM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 11:05 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>>
>> Huh? Last I checked, the fault_in_readable actually read a byte from
>> the page. It has to wait for the read to complete before that can
>> happen.
>
> Yeah, we don't have any kind of async fault-in model.
>
> I'm not sure how that would even look. I don't think it would
> necessarily be *impossible* (special marker in the exception table to
> let the fault code know that this is a "prepare" fault), but it would
> be pretty challenging.
I did send an RFC some time ago for “prepare” fault, but it the RFC
requires some more work.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210225072910.2811795-1-namit@vmware.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists