Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 14:07:29 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Hirokazu Takata <takata@linux-m32r.org>,
        Michal Simek <monstr@monstr.eu>,
        Koichi Yasutake <yasutake.koichi@jp.panasonic.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@tilera.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-m32r@ml.linux-m32r.org,
        linux-m32r-ja@ml.linux-m32r.org, microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au,
        linux-am33-list@redhat.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] uaccess: better might_sleep/might_fault behavior
Message-ID: <20130522110729.GB5643@redhat.com>
References: <cover.1368702323.git.mst@redhat.com>
 <201305221125.36284.arnd@arndb.de>
 <20130522101916.GM18810@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130522101916.GM18810@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1332
Lines: 35

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 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/