[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch RFC 00/15] mm/highmem: Provide a preemptible variant of kmap_atomic & friends
On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 10:18:54AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 2:50 AM Thomas Gleixner <> wrote:
> >
> > this provides a preemptible variant of kmap_atomic & related
> > interfaces. This is achieved by:
> Ack. This looks really nice, even apart from the new capability.
> The only thing I really reacted to is that the name doesn't make sense
> to me: "kmap_temporary()" seems a bit odd.
> Particularly for an interface that really is basically meant as a
> better replacement of "kmap_atomic()" (but is perhaps also a better
> replacement for "kmap()").
> I think I understand how the name came about: I think the "temporary"
> is there as a distinction from the "longterm" regular kmap(). So I
> think it makes some sense from an internal implementation angle, but I
> don't think it makes a lot of sense from an interface name.
> I don't know what might be a better name, but if we want to emphasize
> that it's thread-private and a one-off, maybe "local" would be a
> better naming, and make it distinct from the "global" nature of the
> old kmap() interface?
> However, another solution might be to just use this new preemptible
> "local" kmap(), and remove the old global one entirely. Yes, the old
> global one caches the page table mapping and that sounds really
> efficient and nice. But it's actually horribly horribly bad, because
> it means that we need to use locking for them. Your new "temporary"
> implementation seems to be fundamentally better locking-wise, and only
> need preemption disabling as locking (and is equally fast for the
> non-highmem case).
> So I wonder if the single-page TLB flush isn't a better model, and
> whether it wouldn't be a lot simpler to just get rid of the old
> complex kmap() entirely, and replace it with this?
> I agree we can't replace the kmap_atomic() version, because maybe
> people depend on the preemption disabling it also implied. But what
> about replacing the non-atomic kmap()?

My concern with that is people might use kmap() and then pass the address
to a different task. So we need to audit the current users of kmap()
and convert any that do that into using vmap() instead.

I like kmap_local(). Or kmap_thread().

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-19 19:39    [W:0.136 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site