[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080304175909.GE28006@linux-os.sc.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 09:59:10 -0800
From: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>, hpa@...or.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, andi@...stfloor.org, hch@...radead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] x86, fpu: split FPU state from task struct - v3
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 11:28:04AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com> wrote:
>
> > Split the FPU save area from the task struct. This allows easy
> > migration of FPU context, and it's generally cleaner. It also allows
> > the following two optimizations:
>
> hm, i didnt get a reply from you to:
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/3/47
>
> I'm uneasy to apply patches without knowing whether previous problems
> are fixed. In the changelog there's a mention of:
>
> v3: Fixed the non-atomic calling sequence in atomic context.
>
> is that the same bug?
Yes. Sorry for not pointing out explicitly. Essentially 32bit kernel with
CONFIG_PREEMPT is calling math_state_restore() with interrupts disabled.
Handled this by enabling/disabling the interrupts around the blocking call.
with small code changes ensuring that it is safe to enable/disable interrupts
at this point.
Do you want a v4 or separate patch for handling the kmem_cache_alloc() failure
thanks,
suresh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists