[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YPyMyPCpZKGlfAGk@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2021 21:57:28 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
cluster-devel <cluster-devel@...hat.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/8] iov_iter: Introduce iov_iter_fault_in_writeable
helper
On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 11:38:20PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> Hmm, how could we have sub-page failure areas when this is about if
> and how pages are mapped? If we return the number of bytes that are
> accessible, then users will know if they got nothing, something, or
> everything, and they can act accordingly.
What I'm saying is that in situation when you have cacheline-sized
poisoned areas, there's no way to get an accurate count of readable
area other than try and copy it out.
What's more, "something" is essentially useless information - the
pages might get unmapped right as your function returns; the caller
still needs to deal with partial copies. And that's a slow path
by definition, so informing them of a partial fault-in is not
going to be useful.
As far as callers are concerned, it's "nothing suitable in the
beginning of the area" vs. "something might be accessible".
Powered by blists - more mailing lists