[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:0.019 / U:4.912 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site