[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54CAABF0.3090705@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 16:53:52 -0500
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
CC: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.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 2/3] x86, fpu: unlazy_fpu: don't do __thread_fpu_end()
if use_eager_fpu()
On 01/29/2015 04:49 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Yes. But in this case tsk != current, and we ensure that __switch_to()
> was finished. wait_task_inactive().
>
>> When we switch to the traced task, the __thread_fpu_end()
>> that was called from init_fpu() ensures that
>> switch_fpu_begin() will actually load the new FPU state
>> from memory into the registers, and we will not take
>> the fpu_lazy_restore() branch.
>
> No. in this case we rely on "tsk->thread.fpu.last_cpu = ~0" which disables
> fpu_lazy_restore().
I should have known that.
Especially considering I have a patch here that
converts "tsk->thread.fpu.last_cpu = ~0" into
a disable_lazy_restore() call...
--
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