[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120223224927.GC1306@1wt.eu>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:49:27 +0100
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
Raphael Prevost <raphael@...o.asia>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] i387: stable kernel backport
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 02:38:42PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> wrote:
> >
> > OK so indeed I will only be able to check that it boots :-/
>
> Well, we could do some trivial test-harness that just forces the issue
> with regular timer interrupts (and even without AES-NI). I think Peter
> talked about that when we were trying to hunt it down - but I think he
> was then able to reproduce the problem without anything special and we
> dropped it.
>
> Essentially, just doing something like
>
> if (irq_fpu_usable()) {
> kernel_fpu_begin();
> kernel_fpu_end();
> }
>
> in do_irq() and do_softirq() would stress-test things even without
> wireless, and even without AES-NI.
Interesting...
> You'd still need an x86-32 machine to test on, because x86-64 was
> immune to this issue.
>
> But yeah, the impact of this seems to be small enough that for older
> kernels (which are likely used on older systems for maintenance
> anyway) disabling AES-NI on x86-32 really might be the way to go.
I agree. I don't know anybody using AES-NI on purpose on older x86-32
systems!
Willy
--
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