[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5326761D.5000905@prgmr.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:12:13 -0700
From: Sarah Newman <srn@...mr.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
CC: Suresh Siddha <sbsiddha@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xen.org
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCHv1] x86: don't schedule when handling #NM exception
On 03/16/2014 08:43 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 03/16/2014 08:35 PM, Sarah Newman wrote:
>> Can you please review my patch first? It's only enabled when absolutely required.
>
> It doesn't help. It means you're running on Xen, and you will have
> processes subjected to random SIGKILL because they happen to touch the
> FPU when the atomic pool is low.
>
> However, there is probably a happy medium: you don't actually need eager
> FPU restore, you just need eager FPU *allocation*. We have been
> intending to allocate the FPU state at task creation time for eagerfpu,
> and Suresh Siddha has already produced such a patch; it just needs some
> minor fixups due to an __init failure.
>
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1391325599.6481.5.camel@europa
>
> In the Xen case we could turn on eager allocation but not eager fpu. In
> fact, it might be justified to *always* do eager allocation...
Unconditional eager allocation works. Can xen users count on this being included and applied to the
stable kernels?
Thanks, Sarah
--
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