[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52ED4C96.6020703@zytor.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 11:35:50 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Suresh Siddha <sbsiddha@...il.com>
CC: Nate Eldredge <nate@...tsmathematics.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Maarten Baert <maarten-baert@...mail.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>,
Pekka Riikonen <priikone@....fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make math_state_restore() save and restore the interrupt
flag
On 02/01/2014 11:27 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> (a) "we don't want to restore at all, because once the kernel starts
> using math, it might do so a lot, and saving/restoring is a bad idea":
>
> void __kernel_fpu_end(void)
> {
> stts();
> }
>
> *or*
>
> Quite frankly, I'd almost lean towards (a). Comments? Does anybody
> have any loads where the kernel does a lot of fpu stuff (ie network
> encryption using the hw engines or something)? I'd really like to hear
> if it makes a difference..
>
This will obviously not protect eageronly features (MPX, LWP, ...) so
this means those features are permanently unavailable to the kernel,
even inside kernel_fpu_begin/end. Now, currently I don't think we have
any plans to use those in the kernel (at least not in a way where
kernel_fpu_begin/end makes sense as bracketing), but it is something
worth keeping in mind.
-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