linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/13] x86: Move cond resched for copy_{from,to}_user into low level code 64bit
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 08:04:15 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130815050415.GA2025@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFyN2Cnt=uQOnXszwDA971o=xEwO=yFSgL-RH9vRjMsBbg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 08:42:58AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
> > From: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
> >
> > Move the cond_resched() check for CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY into
> > the low level copy_*_user code. This avoids some code bloat and
> > makes check much more efficient by avoiding unnecessary function calls.
> 
> May I suggest going one step further, and just removing the
> cond_resched() _entirely_, leaving just the debug test?
> 
> There really is zero reason for doing a cond_resched() for user
> accesses. If they take a page fault, then yes, by all means do that
> (and maybe we should add one to the page fault trap if we don't have
> it already), but without a page fault they really aren't that
> expensive.
> 
> We do many more expensive things without any cond_resched(), and doing
> that cond_resched() really doesn't make much sense *unless* there's a
> big expensive loop involved.
> 
> Most of this series looks fine, but I really think that we
> could/should just take that extra step, and say "no, user accesses
> don't imply that we need to check for scheduling".
> 
>                     Linus

In fact we are doing exactly this since 3.11-rc1.

-- 
MST

  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-08-15  5:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-08-09 23:04 Re-tune x86 uaccess code for PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY Andi Kleen
2013-08-09 23:04 ` [PATCH 01/13] x86: Add 1/2/4/8 byte optimization to 64bit __copy_{from,to}_user_inatomic Andi Kleen
2013-08-09 23:04 ` [PATCH 02/13] x86: Include linux/sched.h in asm/uaccess.h Andi Kleen
2013-08-09 23:04 ` [PATCH 03/13] tree-sweep: Include linux/sched.h for might_sleep users Andi Kleen
2013-08-09 23:04 ` [PATCH 04/13] Move might_sleep and friends from kernel.h to sched.h Andi Kleen
2013-08-09 23:04 ` [PATCH 05/13] sched: mark should_resched() __always_inline Andi Kleen
2013-08-09 23:04 ` [PATCH 06/13] x86: Add 32bit versions of SAVE_ALL/RESTORE_ALL to calling.h Andi Kleen
2013-08-09 23:04 ` [PATCH 07/13] Add might_fault_debug_only() Andi Kleen
2013-08-14 18:24   ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2013-08-09 23:04 ` [PATCH 08/13] x86: Move cond_resched into the out of line put_user code Andi Kleen
2013-08-09 23:04 ` [PATCH 09/13] x86: Move cond_resched into the out of line get_user code Andi Kleen
2013-08-09 23:04 ` [PATCH 10/13] x86: Move cond resched for copy_{from,to}_user into low level code 64bit Andi Kleen
2013-08-10 15:42   ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-10 16:10     ` Andi Kleen
2013-08-10 16:27       ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-10 18:23         ` Borislav Petkov
2013-08-10 19:05           ` Jörn Engel
2013-08-20 21:03         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-08-15  5:04     ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
2013-08-09 23:04 ` [PATCH 11/13] sched: Inline the need_resched test into the caller for _cond_resched Andi Kleen
2013-08-09 23:04 ` [PATCH 12/13] x86: move __copy_*_nocache might fault check out of line Andi Kleen
2013-08-09 23:04 ` [PATCH 13/13] x86: drop cond rescheds from __copy_{from,to}_user Andi Kleen
2013-08-10  4:42 ` Re-tune x86 uaccess code for PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY H. Peter Anvin
2013-08-10  5:55   ` Mike Galbraith
2013-08-10 16:09     ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-08-10 16:43       ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-10 17:18         ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-08-10 18:51           ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-10 19:18             ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-08-10 20:26             ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-08-10 23:00             ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-08-11  4:17       ` Mike Galbraith
2013-08-11  4:27         ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-08-11  4:36           ` Mike Galbraith
2013-08-11  4:57             ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-08-11  5:58               ` Mike Galbraith
2013-08-13 18:09 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-08-13 18:12   ` Andi Kleen
2013-08-14 18:27 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2013-08-14 22:08   ` 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=20130815050415.GA2025@redhat.com \
    --to=mst@redhat.com \
    --cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).