On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 02:50:52PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 02:31:17PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 05:36:11PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > For all these and the other _fast() users, is there an actual limit to > > > the nr_pages passed in? Because we used to have the 64 pages limit from > > > DIO, but without that we get rather long IRQ-off latencies. > > > > Ok, I would tend to think this is an issue to solve in gup_fast > > implementation, I wouldn't blame or modify the callers for it. > > > > I don't think there's anything that prevents gup_fast to enable irqs > > after certain number of pages have been taken, nop; and disable the > > irqs again. > > > > Agreed, I once upon a time had a patch set converting the 2 (x86 and > powerpc) gup_fast implementations at the time, but somehow that never > got anywhere. > > Just saying we should probably do that before we add callers with > unlimited nr_pages. https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/6/24/457 Clearly there's more work these days. Many more archs grew a gup.c -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
