[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150216181417.GA7382@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 19:14:17 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
sbsiddha@...il.com, luto@...capital.net, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, fenghua.yu@...el.com,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] x86, fpu: unlazy_fpu: don't reset
thread.fpu_counter
On 02/16, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02/16/2015 12:04 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> > ... and so by looking at the unlazy_fpu() call sites, I think this
> > makes sense.
> >
> > So how's that for a commit message instead:
> >
> > --- x86, fpu, unlazy_fpu: Don't reset thread.fpu_counter
> >
> > The "else" branch clears ->fpu_counter as a remnant of the lazy
> > FPU usage counting:
> >
> > e07e23e1fd30 ("[PATCH] non lazy "sleazy" fpu implementation")
> >
> > However, switch_fpu_prepare() does this now so that else branch is
> > superfluous.
> >
> > If we do use_eager_fpu(), then this has no effect. Otherwise, if
> > we actually wanted to prevent fpu preload after the context switch
> > we would need to reset it unconditionally, even if
> > __thread_has_fpu(). ---
> >
> > ?
>
> Good detective work.
>
> Your changelog makes sense to me.
And to me, thanks.
Should I resend?
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