On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 01:44:45AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 09:51:07 +0100 (CET) Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 2. If we find the destination page is non uptodate, unlock it (this could be
> > made slightly more optimal), then find and pin the source page with
> > get_user_pages. Relock the destination page and continue with the copy.
> > However, instead of a usercopy (which might take a fault), copy the data
> > via the kernel address space.
>
> argh. We just can't go adding all this gunk into the write() path.
>
> mmap_sem, a full pte-walk, taking of pte-page locks, etc. For every page.
> Even single-process write() will suffer, let along multithreaded stuff,
> where mmap_sem contention may be the bigger problem.
The write path is broken. I prefer my kernels slow, than buggy.
As I said, I'm working on a replacement API so that the filesystems
that care, can be correct *and* fast.
> I was going to do some quick measurements of this, but the code oopses
> on power4 (http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/s5000402.jpg)
Cool, a kernel thread is calling sys_write. Fun.
I guess I should be able to reproduce this if using initramfs. Thanks.
> There's a build error in filemap_xip.c btw.
>
>
>
> We need to think different.
>
> What happened to the idea of doing an atomic copy into the non-uptodate
> page and handling it somehow?
That was my second idea. I didn't get any feedback on that patchset
except to try this method, so I assume everyone hated it.
I actually liked it, because it didn't have to do the writev
segment-at-a-time for !uptodate pages like this one does. Considering
this code gets called from mm-less contexts, maybe I'll have to go back
to this approach.
> Another option might be to effectively pin the whole mm during the copy:
>
> down_read(¤t->mm->unpaging_lock);
> get_user(addr); /* Fault the page in */
> ...
> copy_from_user()
> up_read(¤t->mm->unpaging_lock);
>
> then, anyone who wants to unmap pages from this mm requires
> write_lock(unpaging_lock). So we know the results of that get_user()
> cannot be undone.
Fugly. Don't know whether there are any lock order problems making it
hard to implement, but you introduce the theoretical memory deadlock
where a task cannot reclaim its own memory.
> Or perhaps something like this can be done on a per-vma basis. Just
> something to tell the VM "hey, you're not allowed to unmap this page right
> now"?
Same memory deadlock problem.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
