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

2013-05-22 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 04:04:48PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 22 May 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:25:36AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > Given the most commonly used functions and a couple of architectures > > > I'm familiar with, these are

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

2013-05-22 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Wednesday 22 May 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:25:36AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > Given the most commonly used functions and a couple of architectures > > I'm familiar with, these are the ones that currently call might_fault() > > > >

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

2013-05-22 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:25:36AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > Given the most commonly used functions and a couple of architectures > I'm familiar with, these are the ones that currently call might_fault() > > x86-32 x86-64 arm arm64 powerpc s390generic > copy_t

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

2013-05-22 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 02:07:29PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > 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: > > > Calling might_fault() for every __get_user/__put_user is rather expensive > > > because it t

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

2013-05-22 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
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: > > 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 f

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

2013-05-22 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:25:36AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > 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 jus

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

2013-05-22 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:25:36AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 16 May 2013, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > This improves the might_fault annotations used > > by uaccess routines: > > > > 1. The only reason uaccess routines might sleep > >is if they fault. Make this explicit for >

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

2013-05-22 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Thursday 16 May 2013, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > This improves the might_fault annotations used > by uaccess routines: > > 1. The only reason uaccess routines might sleep >is if they fault. Make this explicit for >all architectures. > 2. Accesses (e.g through socket ops) to kernel memo

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

2013-05-16 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
This improves the might_fault annotations used by uaccess routines: 1. The only reason uaccess routines might sleep is if they fault. Make this explicit for all architectures. 2. Accesses (e.g through socket ops) to kernel memory with KERNEL_DS like net/sunrpc does will never sleep. Re