Thread (42 messages) 42 messages, 7 authors, 2013-05-24

Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] uaccess: better might_sleep/might_fault behavior

From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Date: 2013-05-22 11:09:08
Also in: kvm, linux-arch, linux-arm-kernel, linux-mm, lkml

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:19:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:25:36AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
quoted
Calling might_fault() for every __get_user/__put_user is rather expensive
because it turns what should be a single instruction (plus fixup) into an
external function call.
We could hide it all behind CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP just like
might_sleep() is. I'm not sure there's a point to might_fault() when
might_sleep() is a NOP.
The patch that you posted gets pretty close.
E.g. I'm testing this now:
+#define might_fault() do { \
+       if (_might_fault()) \
+               __might_sleep(__FILE__, __LINE__, 0); \
+       might_resched(); \
+} while(0)

So if might_sleep is a NOP, __might_sleep and might_resched are NOPs
so compiler will optimize this all out.

However, in a related thread, you pointed out that might_sleep is not a NOP if
CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY is set, even without CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP.

Do you think we should drop the preemption point in might_fault?
Only copy_XX_user?
Only __copy_XXX_user ?

-- 
MST
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help