Re: [RFC] [PATCH] cache pollution aware __copy_from_user_ll()

> the problem is that the pay elsewhere is far more spread out, but not
> less. At least generally....
> 
> I can see the point of a copy_from_user_nocache() or something, for
> those cases where we *know* we are not going to use the copied data in
> the cpu (but say, only do DMA).
> But that should be explicit, not implicit, since the general case will
> be that the kernel WILL use the data.

Most of the callers probably want the normal one, but most of the copied
data (buffered filesystem I/O) will want the non cache poluting one.

So yes, doing this explicit makes a lot of sense.

-
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/

---

• References:
  • [RFC] [PATCH] cache pollution aware __copy_from_user_ll()
    • From: Hiro Yoshioka <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC] [PATCH] cache pollution aware __copy_from_user_ll()
    • From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC] [PATCH] cache pollution aware __copy_from_user_ll()
    • From: Hiro Yoshioka <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC] [PATCH] cache pollution aware __copy_from_user_ll()
    • From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Opening of blocking FIFOs not reliable?
• Next by Date: Wired linker problem...
• Previous by thread: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] cache pollution aware __copy_from_user_ll()
• Next by thread: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] cache pollution aware __copy_from_user_ll()
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]