[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <489CF9EC.5050109@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:59:08 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
CC: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Wolfgang Walter <wolfgang.walter@...m.de>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
vegard.nossum@...il.com
Subject: Re: Kernel oops with 2.6.26, padlock and ipsec: probably problem
with fpu state changes
Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 12:01:15PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> It's technically overkill, if (and only if!) these instructions don't
>> actually touch the SSE state (most likely they're using the SSE
>> pipeline, and need this stuff to deal with power management issues.)
>
> Yes the PadLock uses the SSE pipeline, but doesn't touch any
> of the state.
And yet it requires all the settings that goes along with holding the
SSE state. Really crap design, unfortunately.
>> However, overkill is a good way to make sure something is dead.
>> Applying the patch will make sure we fix the regression, and we can
>> worry about optimizing this further post-2.6.27.
>
> Do we really need the FPU changes right now? I'd prefer for that
> to be backed out until a proper solution is found. Disabling
> preemption around crypto is really bad for scheduling latency.
I hate to say it, but given the relative marketshare, we should disable
Padlock instead.
This is part of the pain of being a minority architecture.
-hpa
--
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