From: jim owens <jowens@hp.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
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: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:27:26 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4ACE674E.30403@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0910081850270.4553@sister.anvils>
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.
OK, the code is not submitted yet and I can redesign the
code using a temp buffer for out and copy every byte or
use kmap(), either of them at some performance cost.
I'm just pointing out that there are cases where this
stack design puts an ugly restriction on use.
So if I understand this right, I don't love the patch (:
jim
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-08 22:28 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 [this message]
2009-10-08 22:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-10-08 22:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=4ACE674E.30403@hp.com \
--to=jowens@hp.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--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