From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Brad Parker <brad@heeltoe.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: copy_{to,from}_user
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 10:55:45 +0100 (CET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0901111055040.30201@anakin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090111020923.GC29153@elte.hu>
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 12:52 -0500, Brad Parker wrote:
> > > I have a question about copy_{to,from}_user.
> > >
> > > Most implementations I've seen do in-order copies and notice when an
> > > exception occurs and report back the progress. This is straight
> > > forward.
> > >
> > > (but to be honest, I have suspicions about how just how accurate those
> > > reports are i.e. +/- 1-3 bytes on some architectures)
> > >
> > > On some cpu's it is advantageous to do an out-of-order copy to take
> > > advantage of various cache fill mechanisms.
> > >
> > > The problem is that the out-of-order copy makes it impossible to know
> > > where the exception occurred (in terms of progress).
> > >
> > > Would it be permissible to have a version of copy_{to,from}_user which
> > > does an out-of-order copy and when an exception occurs, restarts the
> > > copy from the beginning using a simple in-order copy, to make it
> > > possible to identify where the exception occurs?
> > >
> > > The idea is that exceptions are rare and so the performance hit of doing
> > > the "recopy" would be minimal and would provide the required accuracy.
> >
> > x86_64 already does some unrolling and is inaccurate as to where exactly
> > it happens. The only thing that is very important is that you _never_
> > say you copied more than you actually did.
> >
> > That was the source of a data corruption bug a while ago, the code did
> > something like sequences: read 8 words, write 8 words. And reported the
> > number of bytes read, instead of bytes written, which is an
> > over-estimation.
>
> you sure must have meant 'write 7 words' or something like that?
I understood it as: the code read 8 words, and wrote 8 words.
But only n < 8 words could be written, while the code still returned 8.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-11 9:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-09 17:52 copy_{to,from}_user Brad Parker
2009-01-09 21:54 ` copy_{to,from}_user Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-11 2:09 ` copy_{to,from}_user Ingo Molnar
2009-01-11 9:55 ` Geert Uytterhoeven [this message]
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=Pine.LNX.4.64.0901111055040.30201@anakin \
--to=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=brad@heeltoe.com \
--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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®