linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] x86, fpu: Use eagerfpu by default on all CPUs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 23 Feb 2015 16:59:41 -0800
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86, fpu: Use eagerfpu by default on all CPUs

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@...ux-mips.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2015, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>> We have one traditional special case, which actually did something
>> like Maciej's nightmare scenario: the completely broken "FPU errors
>> over irq13" IBM PC/AT FPU linkage.
>>
>> But since we don't actually support old i386 machines any more, we
>> don't really need to care. The only way you can get into that
>> situation is with an external i387. I don't think we need to worry
>> about it.
>>
>> But with the old horrid irq13 error handling, you literally could get
>> into a situation that you got an error "exception" (irq) from the
>> previous state, *after* you had already switched to the new one. We
>> had some code to mitigate the problem, but as mentioned, I don't think
>> it's an issue any more.
>
>  Correct, the horrid hack is gone, it was so horrible (though I understand
> why IBM had to do it with their PC/AT) that back in mid 1990s, some 10
> years after the inception of the problem, Intel felt so compelled to make
> people get the handling of it right as to release a dedicated application
> note: "AP-578 Software and Hardware Considerations for FPU Exception
> Handlers for Intel Architecture Processors", Order Number 243291-002.
>
>  Anyway, my point through this consideration has been about the
> performance benefit from continuing the execution of an x87 instruction in
> parallel, perhaps until after a context has been fully switched.  Which
> benefit is lost if a FSAVE/FXSAVE executed eagerly at the context switch
> stalls waiting for the instruction to complete instead.

And the save is indeed executed eagerly.  Conceivably we could get rid
of that on UP, but that seems to be a lot of complexity for extremely
little gain.

--Andy
--
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/