On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:> On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 19:56 +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:>>> >> Then, get_futex_value_locked calls __cpy_from_user_inatomic with>> >> pagefault_disable.>> >>>> >> Who make sure the user page is mapped at app's page table ?>> >>> > Nobody, all uses of get_futex_value_locked() have to deal with it>> > returning -EFAULT.>>>> Does It mean that __copy_from_user_inatomic in get_futex_value_locked>> would be failed rather than sleep?>> Correct.>>> In fact, I don't make sure _copy_from_user_inatomic function's meaning.>> As far as I understand, It never sleep. It just can be failed in case>> of user page isn't mapped. Is right ?>> Correct.>>> Otherwise, it can be scheduled with pagefault_disable which increments>> preempt_count. It is a atomic bug.>> If my assume is right, it can be failed rather than sleep.>> At this case, other architecture implements __copy_from_user_inatomic>> with __copy_from_user which can be scheduled. It also can be bug.>>>> Hmm, Now I am confusing.>> Confused I guess ;-)> The trick is in the in_atomic() check in the pagefault handler and the> fixup section of the copy routines.
Whew~,  There was good hidden trick.I will dive into this assembly.I always thanks for your kindness. :)
> #define __copy_user(to, from, size)                                     \> do {                                                                    \>        int __d0, __d1, __d2;                                           \>        __asm__ __volatile__(                                           \>                "       cmp  $7,%0\n"                                   \>                "       jbe  1f\n"                                      \>                "       movl %1,%0\n"                                   \>                "       negl %0\n"                                      \>                "       andl $7,%0\n"                                   \>                "       subl %0,%3\n"                                   \>                "4:     rep; movsb\n"                                   \>                "       movl %3,%0\n"                                   \>                "       shrl $2,%0\n"                                   \>                "       andl $3,%3\n"                                   \>                "       .align 2,0x90\n"                                \>                "0:     rep; movsl\n"                                   \>                "       movl %3,%0\n"                                   \>                "1:     rep; movsb\n"                                   \>                "2:\n"                                                  \>                ".section .fixup,\"ax\"\n"                              \>                "5:     addl %3,%0\n"                                   \>                "       jmp 2b\n"                                       \>                "3:     lea 0(%3,%0,4),%0\n"                            \>                "       jmp 2b\n"                                       \>                ".previous\n"                                           \>                ".section __ex_table,\"a\"\n"                           \>                "       .align 4\n"                                     \>                "       .long 4b,5b\n"                                  \>                "       .long 0b,3b\n"                                  \>                "       .long 1b,2b\n"                                  \>                ".previous"                                             \>                : "=&c"(size), "=&D" (__d0), "=&S" (__d1), "=r"(__d2)   \>                : "3"(size), "0"(size), "1"(to), "2"(from)              \>                : "memory");                                            \> } while (0)>> see that __ex_table section, it tells the fault handler where to> continue in case of an atomic fault.>>> > Most of this is legacy btw, from when futex ops were done under the>> > mmap_sem. Back then we couldn't fault because that would cause mmap_sem>> > recursion. Howver, now that we don't hold mmap_sem anymore we could use>> > a faulting user access like get_user().>> > Darren has been working on patches to clean that up, some of those are>> > already merged in the -tip tree.>>>> Thanks for good information.>> It will be very desirable way to enhance kernel performance.>> I doubt it'll make a measurable difference, if you need to fault> performance sucks anyway. If you don't, the current code is just as> fast.>


-- Kinds regards,Minchan Kim���{.n�+�������+%�����ݶ��w��{.n�+����{��G�����{ay�ʇڙ�,j��f���h��������z_�(�階�ݢj"���m������G������?����&���~��iO��z��v�^�m����������?�I�