On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Linus Torvalds
> <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>> + local_irq_enable();
>>> + if (get_user(*(u32 *)®s->cx,
>>> + (u32 __user __force *)(unsigned long)(u32)regs->sp)) {
>> ...
>>> + local_irq_disable();
>>
>> this is expensive. Since we now do it in C code and can easily do
>> this, why does the code not do this all with interrupts disabled,
>> which is valid for user accesses but disables page faults, and then in
>> the unlikely situation where that fails, we do it the slow and careful
>> way?
>
> Ok. I notice that then a later patch removes the local_irq_disable()
> and calls do_syscall_32_irqs_on().
>
> So I guess that "just run get_user with interrupts disabled"
> optimization is pointless, because we'll just end up enabling
> interrupts at some point anyway, and it can just be done before the
> get_user().
>
> So never mind.
>
I'll improve the changelog. This is all clear in my head, but I could
certainly describe it better.
I tried to structure this as much as possible as simple unoptimized
changes that would be easyish to understand from a correctness
perspective and then to optimize at the end.
--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
