[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150115191943.GB27332@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 20:19:43 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Suresh Siddha <sbsiddha@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
matt.fleming@...el.com, bp@...e.de, pbonzini@...hat.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, luto@...capital.net
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] x86, fpu: introduce per-cpu "bool in_kernel_fpu"
interrupted_kernel_fpu_idle() tries to detect if kernel_fpu_begin()
is safe or not. In particular it should obviously deny the nested
kernel_fpu_begin() and this logic looks very confusing.
If use_eager_fpu() == T we rely on a) __thread_has_fpu() check in
interrupted_kernel_fpu_idle(), and b) on the fact that _begin() does
__thread_clear_has_fpu().
Otherwise we demand that the interrupted task has no FPU if it is in
kernel mode, this works because __kernel_fpu_begin() does clts() and
interrupted_kernel_fpu_idle() checks X86_CR0_TS.
Add the per-cpu "bool in_kernel_fpu" variable, and change this code
to check/set/clear it. This allows to do more cleanups and fixes, see
the next changes.
The patch also moves WARN_ON_ONCE() under preempt_disable() just to
make this_cpu_read() look better, this is not really needed. And in
fact I think we should move it into __kernel_fpu_begin().
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
---
arch/x86/include/asm/i387.h | 2 +-
arch/x86/kernel/i387.c | 9 +++++++++
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/i387.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/i387.h
index ed8089d..5e275d3 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/i387.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/i387.h
@@ -40,8 +40,8 @@ extern void __kernel_fpu_end(void);
static inline void kernel_fpu_begin(void)
{
- WARN_ON_ONCE(!irq_fpu_usable());
preempt_disable();
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(!irq_fpu_usable());
__kernel_fpu_begin();
}
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/i387.c b/arch/x86/kernel/i387.c
index a9a4229..a815723 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/i387.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/i387.c
@@ -19,6 +19,8 @@
#include <asm/fpu-internal.h>
#include <asm/user.h>
+static DEFINE_PER_CPU(bool, in_kernel_fpu);
+
/*
* Were we in an interrupt that interrupted kernel mode?
*
@@ -33,6 +35,9 @@
*/
static inline bool interrupted_kernel_fpu_idle(void)
{
+ if (this_cpu_read(in_kernel_fpu))
+ return false;
+
if (use_eager_fpu())
return __thread_has_fpu(current);
@@ -73,6 +78,8 @@ void __kernel_fpu_begin(void)
{
struct task_struct *me = current;
+ this_cpu_write(in_kernel_fpu, true);
+
if (__thread_has_fpu(me)) {
__thread_clear_has_fpu(me);
__save_init_fpu(me);
@@ -99,6 +106,8 @@ void __kernel_fpu_end(void)
} else {
stts();
}
+
+ this_cpu_write(in_kernel_fpu, false);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(__kernel_fpu_end);
--
1.5.5.1
--
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