Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 22 Jun 2021 19:04:02 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Do we need to unrevert "fs: do not prefault sys_write() user
 buffer pages"?
Message-ID: <YNImEkqizzuStW72@casper.infradead.org>
References: <CAHk-=wh=YxjEtTpYyhgypKmPJQ8eVLJ4qowmwbnG1bOU06_4Bg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3221175.1624375240@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <YNIBb5WPrk8nnKKn@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
 <YNIDdgn0m8d2a0P3@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
 <YNIdJaKrNj5GoT7w@casper.infradead.org>
 <3231150.1624384533@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3231150.1624384533@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 06:55:33PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > End result: doing the fault_in_readable "unnecessarily" at the
> > beginning is likely the better optimization. It's basically free when
> > it's not necessary, and it avoids an extra fault (and extra
> > lock/unlock and retry) when it does end up faulting pages in.
> 
> It may also cause the read in to happen in the background whilst write_begin
> is being done.

Huh?  Last I checked, the fault_in_readable actually read a byte from
the page.  It has to wait for the read to complete before that can
happen.