Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:25:21 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, avi@redhat.com,
       davidel@xmailserver.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mingo@elte.hu
Subject: Re: [KVM-RFC PATCH 1/2] eventfd: add an explicit srcu based
	notifier interface
Message-ID: <20090617162521.GE3089@redhat.com>
References: <20090616143816.GA18196@redhat.com> <4A37B0BB.3020005@novell.com> <20090616145502.GA1102@redhat.com> <4A37B832.6040206@novell.com> <20090616154150.GA17494@redhat.com> <4A37C592.2030407@novell.com> <20090616175300.GA24514@redhat.com> <4A37DFE2.2020506@novell.com> <20090617144540.GB3089@redhat.com> <4A39056E.1060409@novell.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4A39056E.1060409@novell.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1665
Lines: 44

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:02:06AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 02:09:38PM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> >   
> >>> What do you mean by copy_to_user(other->mm) here?  If you are going to switch
> >>> to another mm, then I think current->mm must be valid (I think it's not enough
> >>> that you can sleep). So preemptible() might not be enough.
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >> I dont currently use switch_mm, if that is what you mean.  I save the
> >> task_struct into the appropriate context so current->mm doesn't matter
> >> to me.  I never use it.  All I need (afaik) is to acquire the proper
> >> mutex first.  I am not an MM expert, so perhaps I have this wrong but it
> >> does appear to work properly even from kthread context.
> >>
> >> -Greg
> >>
> >>
> >>     
> >
> > I think I saw get_user_pages + memcpy in your patch. Yes, that works
> > without switching contexts but it's slower than copy to user if you are
> > in the right context, and AFAIK it's slower than get_user_pages_fast.
> >
> >   
> Yeah, understood.  It will definitely be interesting to try that
> optimization with switch_mm that you suggested.

BTW, I'm kind of confused - in your patch you do get_task_struct: does this
guarantee that mm is not going aways?

> On that front, would "if (p == current)" still work even if we don't
> have the "signal_task()" hint?
> 

Donnu.

-- 
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/