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
next prev 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).