[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <505AE281.1030603@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 12:31:45 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
CC: hpa@...or.com, mingo@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
andreas.herrmann3@....com, bp@...64.org, robert.richter@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86, kvm: use kernel_fpu_begin/end() in kvm_load/put_guest_fpu()
On 09/19/2012 08:25 PM, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-09-19 at 20:22 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 09/19/2012 08:18 PM, Suresh Siddha wrote:
>>
>> > These routines (kvm_load/put_guest_fpu()) are already called with
>> > preemption disabled but as you mentioned, we don't want the preemption
>> > to be disabled completely between the kvm_load_guest_fpu() and
>> > kvm_put_guest_fpu().
>> >
>> > Also KVM already has the preempt notifier which is doing the
>> > kvm_put_guest_fpu(), so something like the appended should address this.
>> > I will test this shortly.
>> >
>>
>> Note, we could also go in a different direction and make
>> kernel_fpu_begin() use preempt notifiers and thus make its users
>> preemptible. But that's for a separate patchset.
>
> yep, but we need the fpu buffer to save/restore the kernel fpu state.
>
> KVM already has those buffers allocated in the guest cpu state and hence
> it all works out ok. But yes, we can revisit this in future.
kernel_fpu_begin() can allocate it. It means changing the APIs, but
changing the behaviour to be preemptible is a bigger change anyway.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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