From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915: Prefault all pages for pread
 and pwrite
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 01:40:31 +0000
Message-ID: <20110710014031.GA8410@cloud01>
References: <1310200731-18086-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from cloud01.chad-versace.us (184-106-247-128.static.cloud-ips.com
	[184.106.247.128])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DECEC9E78F
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Sat,  9 Jul 2011 18:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1310200731-18086-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 09:38:50AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> index 4fc9738..2fce620 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> @@ -503,6 +503,19 @@ out:
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> +static int prefault_writeable(unsigned long uaddr, unsigned long len)
> +{
> +	int ret = 0;
> +
> +	len += uaddr;
> +	while (uaddr < len) {
> +		ret |= __put_user(0, (char __user *)uaddr);
> +		uaddr += 4096;
> +	}
> +
> +	return ret ? -EFAULT : 0;
> +}
> +
>  /**
>   * Reads data from the object referenced by handle.
>   *

What's the reason for not breaking out of the loop on the first failing
fault? It seems like you could incur a bunch of latency for a call which
you know will ending up failin anyway. Although TBH I'm not clear how
it could actually fail if you've called access_ok().

Also you should probably use PAGE_SIZE instead of 4096.

Ben