[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54CAA973.4050401@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 13:43:15 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
CC: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Suresh Siddha <sbsiddha@...il.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3]: x86, fpu: unlazy_fpu fixes/cleanups
On 01/29/2015 01:33 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 01/29, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>
>> On 01/29/2015 01:07 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> On 01/23, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>>>> Not only is this broken with my new code, but it looks like it may
>>>>> be broken with the current code, too...
>>> Lets (try to) fix unlazy_fpu/save_init_fpu at least.
>>>
>>> Dave, fpu_save_init() in do_bounds() and task_get_bounds_dir() looks
>>> wrong too, shouldn't it use unlazy_fpu() ? See the changelog in 3/3.
>>
>> IIRC, the 'cpu_has_xsaveopt' on the CPUs that support will MPX will
>> enable eagerfpu.
>
> unless eagerfpu=off? but this doesn't matter.
Yeah, that's true. That would also explain why I haven't run in to this
at all in testing.
Ugh, fpu_save_init() says it isn't preempt safe anyway, so we shouldn't
be using it.
I'll send a fix.
--
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