[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yz9IEX1uFNllLjAD@iweiny-desk3>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2022 14:26:41 -0700
From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
CC: "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Borislav Petkov" <bp@...en8.de>, <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/sgx: Replace kmap/kunmap_atomic calls
On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 01:45:56PM -0700, Hansen, Dave wrote:
> On 10/6/22 13:37, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > kmap() were not suited in those cases because it might sleep. If the intents
> > of the author are simply map a page while in atomic, so to avoid sleeping in
> > atomic bugs, your conversions looks good.
> >
> > For the reasons above, can you please say something more about why this code
> > needed a kmap_atomic() instead of calling kmap()?
>
> This question is backwards. kmap_atomic() is the default that folks
> use. You use kmap_atomic() *always* unless you _need_ to sleep or one
> of the other kmap()-only things.
>
> Folks don't and shouldn't have to explain why this was using kmap_atomic().
I've not looked at the code closely enough but there was some concern that
kmap_atomic() callers are depending on preemption being disabled vs the more
common case of them being used in an atomic context where kmap() can't work.
Ira
Powered by blists - more mailing lists