[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] Introduce copy_user_handle_tail routine
Linus Torvalds <> writes:

> Now, the stuff that comes *before* that point is the "try to fix up one
> byte at a time" thing, which I'd like to be simple and dumb. At least to
> start with.

Just to be clear: do these patches are good enough now (to start with)?
Or, may be, it needs to be further improved?

> Of course, I also suspect that *eventually* we might want to make it
> smarter and more complex. For example, while performance isn't a primary
> issue, we might want to eventually avoid having to do _two_ faults (once
> in the fast unrolled or word-at-a-time loop, and once in the byte-for-byte
> one), by limiting the byte-for-byte one to be within a page, but that
> would be a "future enhancement" thing.

Btw, how much does it cost to CPU to do a fault? Can it be compared with
average time of find_vma()?

wbr, Vitaly

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-07-07 14:11    [W:0.245 / U:1.592 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site