Re: [PATCH 2/6] uprobes: introduce is_swbp_at_addr_fast()

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 04/17, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2012-04-16 at 17:34 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 04/16, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > Can't we 'optimize' read_opcode() by doing the pagefault_disable() +
> > > __copy_from_user_inatomic() optimistically before going down the whole
> > > gup()+lock+kmap path?
> >
> > Unlikely, the task is not current.
>
> Easy enough to test that though.. and that should make the regular path
> fast enough, no?
>
>
> ---
>  kernel/events/uprobes.c |    9 +++++++++
>  1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> index 985be4d..7f5d8c5 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> @@ -312,6 +312,15 @@ static int read_opcode(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long vaddr, uprobe_opcode_
>  	void *vaddr_new;
>  	int ret;
>
> +	if (mm == current->mm) {
> +		pagefault_disable();
> +		ret = __copy_from_user_inatomic(opcode, (void __user *)vaddr,
> +						sizeof(*opcode));
> +		pagefault_enable();
> +		if (!ret)
> +			return 0;
> +	}

Indeed. And then we do not need is_swbp_at_addr_fast().

This reminds me. Why read_opcode() does lock_page? I was going
to send the cleanup which removes it, but I need to recheck.

Perhaps you can explain the reason?

Oleg.

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