[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [20]   [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 Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 08:23:26AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19 2020 at 12:37, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 12:35 PM Daniel Vetter <> wrote:
> >> I think it should be the case, but I want to double check: Will
> >> copy_*_user be allowed within a kmap_temporary section? This would
> >> allow us to ditch an absolute pile of slowpaths.
> >
> > (coffee just kicked in) copy_*_user is ofc allowed, but if you hit a
> > page fault you get a short read/write. This looks like it would remove
> > the need to handle these in a slowpath, since page faults can now be
> > served in this new kmap_temporary sections. But this sounds too good
> > to be true, so I'm wondering what I'm missing.
> In principle we could allow pagefaults, but not with the currently
> proposed interface which can be called from any context. Obviously if
> called from atomic context it can't handle user page faults.

Yeah that's clear, but does the implemention need to disable pagefaults

> In theory we could make a variant which does not disable pagefaults, but
> that's what kmap() already provides.

Currently we have a bunch of code which roughly does


if (short_copy_user) {

And the only reason is that kmap is a notch slower, hence the fastpath. If
we get a kmap which is fast and allows pagefaults (only in contexts that
allow pagefaults already ofc) then we can ditch a pile of kmap users.

Cheers, Daniel
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-20 10:25    [W:0.095 / U:6.388 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site