[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140825173930.GA10376@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 19:39:30 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Suresh Siddha <sbsiddha@...il.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()
On 08/25, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to change it only because this code is the main source of the
> > nasty special case, used_math() and/or __thread_has_fpu(current) can be
> > false even if use_eager_fpu().
>
> Well, if you think it is correct (apart from missing preemption), then
> I disagree *violently* with your "clean it up by restoring things
> twice" model.
OK.
> The signal handling overhead of floating point restore is not small,
> and it's not theoretical.
Again, this only if 32bit && use_eager_fpu(), and use_eager_fpu() adds
this overhead to every context switch.
But you convinced me anyway. If this hack doesn't look "obviously safe
and correct", lets forget it.
I'll try to play with copy_from_user_in_atomic(), if nothing else just
to complete the discussion and see how the code can look in this case.
Thanks!
Oleg.
--
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