[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54F8A1C4.1010504@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:34:44 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
CC: Quentin Casasnovas <quentin.casasnovas@...cle.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pekka Riikonen <priikone@....fi>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Suresh Siddha <sbsiddha@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Oops with tip/x86/fpu
On 03/05/2015 10:22 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/05, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> I _think_ that the difference is that eager_fpu_init()->xrstor_state()
>> was called before apply_alternatives(), so it used XRSTOR.
>>
>> Note also that (before this commit) restore_fpu_checking() was almost
>> never called right after init_fpu(). If use_eager_fpu() == T.
>>
>> After this commit the first xrstor_state() uses XRSTORS. And that is
>> how (I think) 'noxsaves' makes the difference.
>>
>>
>> So. I can be easily wrong, but so far I _think_ that this commit disclosed
>> another problem. And even if I am wrong and this commit is buggy, we need
>> to understand why ;)
>>
>> I'll try to think about debugging patch, I can't reproduce this problem
>> on my machine...
>
> Dave. could please run the test-case below?
>
> Without 'noxsaves', and without my commit.
So you want it tested at 4b2e762e2e5 in tip/x86/fpu?
--
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