[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFyQzvvmWUDA01x69vYkrwUG07q9P3Mv5KaT31pOFsBZGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 13:05:39 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Bean Anderson <bean@...lsystems.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] x86, fpu: don't drop_fpu() in __restore_xstate_sig()
if use_eager_fpu()
I really dislike this one.
If I read it right, you now do *two* math_state_restore calls for each
FPU signal state restore. That's potentially quite expensive.
Also, you can actually end up with multiple threads pointing to the
same math state in init_task.thread.fpu.state, right? Why is that any
better than just having the save state temporarily contain garbage?
The other patches look sane, this one I really don't like. You may
have good reasons for it, but it's disgusting.
Linus
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> __restore_xstate_sig() calls math_state_restore() with preemption
> enabled, not good. But this is minor, [...]
--
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