From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: jim owens <jowens@hp.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] kmap_atomic_push
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:57:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1255042636.17055.33.camel@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4ACE674E.30403@hp.com>
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 18:27 -0400, jim owens wrote:
> So if I understand this correctly, the sequence:
>
> in = kmap_atomic(inpage, KM_USER1);
>
> out = kmap_atomic(outpage, KM_USER0);
>
> kunmap_atomic(in, KM_USER1);
>
> in = kmap_atomic(next_inpage, KM_USER1);
>
> is now illegal with this patch, which breaks code
> I am testing now for btrfs.
>
> My code does this because the in/out are zlib inflate
> and the in/out run at different rates.
You can do things like:
do {
in = kmap_atomic(inpage);
out = kmap_atomic(outpage);
<deflate until end of either in/out>
kunmap_atomic(outpage);
kunmap_atomic(inpage);
cond_resched();
<iterate bits>
} while (<not done>)
The double unmap gives a preemption point, which sounds like a good
thing to have, because your scheme could run for a long while without
enabling preemption, which is badness.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-08 22:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-08 15:35 [RFC][PATCH] kmap_atomic_push Peter Zijlstra
2009-10-08 15:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-10-08 15:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-10-08 15:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-10-08 16:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-10-08 16:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-10-08 16:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-10-08 18:02 ` Hugh Dickins
2009-10-08 22:27 ` jim owens
2009-10-08 22:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-10-08 22:57 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2009-10-08 22:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-10-09 12:15 ` jim owens
2009-10-09 12:15 ` jim owens
2009-10-08 22:12 ` David Howells
2009-10-08 22:12 ` David Howells
2009-10-08 22:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-10-08 22:58 ` David Howells
2009-10-08 22:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-10-12 18:10 ` Andi Kleen
2009-10-12 18:10 ` Andi Kleen
2009-10-12 18:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-10-12 18:40 ` Andi Kleen
2009-10-12 18:40 ` Andi Kleen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1255042636.17055.33.camel@laptop \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk \
--cc=jowens@hp.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox