[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwNST_Lhou1h9JWkg348BET7CbqNX50XYPOFNbXioXdxg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 10:04:56 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>, hpa@...or.com,
mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
suresh@...stanetworks.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] coredump: flush the fpu exit state for proper
multi-threaded core dump
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> My point was, there is no any guarantee prepare_to_copy() does the flush.
> An architecture can do this in copy_thread() or arch_dup_task_struct(),
> for example. In fact I do not understand why x86 doesn't do this.
I agree that it would actually make more sense to do in
arch_dup_task_struct(). I had trouble finding where the heck the
fork() code did the FPU fixes back when I was fighting the FPU
corruption thing.
The prepare_to_copy() thing is, I think, purely historical, and I
think we should in fact get rid of it. Everybody else makes it a
no-op, I think, with a *few* exceptions that seem to have copied the
x86 model of flushing the FPU there.
So if somebody sends me a patch to remove that thing, and move the few
existing users to arch_dup_task_struct(), I'd take it.
I think it would be a mistake to use it in the exit path. Make an
explicit "drop_thread_state()" or similar macro, which can undo FPU
state and possibly other architecture state.
Linus
--
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