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
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.