Thread (25 messages) 25 messages, 7 authors, 2021-06-22

Re: Do we need to unrevert "fs: do not prefault sys_write() user buffer pages"?

From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Date: 2021-06-22 15:36:41
Also in: linux-fsdevel, linux-mm, lkml

On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 03:27:43PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 04:20:40PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
quoted
and wondering if the iov_iter_fault_in_readable() is actually effective.  Yes,
it can make sure that the page we're intending to modify is dragged into the
pagecache and marked uptodate so that it can be read from, but is it possible
for the page to then get reclaimed before we get to
iov_iter_copy_from_user_atomic()?  a_ops->write_begin() could potentially take
a long time, say if it has to go and get a lock/lease from a server.
Yes, it is.  So what?  We'll just retry.  You *can't* take faults while holding
some pages locked; not without shitloads of deadlocks.
Note that the revert you propose is going to do fault-in anyway; we really can't
avoid it.  The only thing it does is optimistically trying without that the
first time around, which is going to be an overall loss exactly in "slow
write_begin" case.  If source pages are absent, you'll get copyin fail;
iov_iter_copy_from_user_atomic() (or its replacement) is disabling pagefaults
itself.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help