Re: [PATCH RFC 01/15] uaccess: count pagefault_disable() levels in pagefault_disabled

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 02:14:39PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Thanks :), well just to make sure I got your opinion on this correctly:
> 
> 1. You think that 2 counters is the way to go for now

ack

> 2. You agree that we can't replace preempt_disable()+pagefault_disable() with
> preempt_disable() (CONFIG_PREEMPT stuff), so we need to have them separately

ack

> 3. We need in_atomic() (in the fault handlers only!) in addition to make sure we
> don't mess with irq contexts (In that case I would add a good comment to that
> place, describing why preempt_disable() won't help)

ack

> I think this is the right way to go because:
> 
> a) This way we don't have to modify preempt_disable() logic (including
> PREEMPT_COUNT).
> 
> b) There are not that many users relying on
> preempt_disable()+pagefault_disable()  (compared to pure preempt_disable() or
> pagefault_disable() users), so the performance overhead of two cache lines
> should be small. Users only making use of one of them should see no difference
> in performance.

indeed.

> c) We correctly decouple preemption and pagefault logic. Therefore we can now
> preempt when pagefaults are disabled, which feels right.

Right, that's always been the intent of introducing pagefault_disable().
--
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/