[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080523180928.GE18385@linux-os.sc.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 11:09:28 -0700
From: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
tglx@...utronix.de, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, drepper@...hat.com,
Hongjiu.lu@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
arjan@...ux.intel.com, rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk, dan@...ian.org,
asit.k.mallick@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86: xsave/xrstor support, ucontext_t extensions
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 07:49:18PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Roland McGrath wrote:
> >>hmm.. so the kernel needs to export all the cpuid info (that the kernel
> >>enables and supports) to the user through some mechanism then?
> >
> >For a cheap interface, we use AT_HWCAP for this. Unfortunately that only
> >covers the first 32 bits of CPUID info. (For another cheap interface,
> >giving all the CPUID bits in the vDSO would be easy.)
> >
> >For a clunky interface that already exists and is "simple" to use,
> >there is /dev/cpu/0/cpuid now. I wonder if having a device node and
> >opening it too much for applications that consider the vDSO too complex.
>
> I doubt it.
Ok. If really needed, they can use this interface aswell. But I don't
see a need for a new system call / other mechanism, just for xsave
purpose. They can rely on cpuid or any other equivalent infrastructure the
kernel provides.
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