[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150305184613.GA5432@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 19:46:13 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
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, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> 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?
Yes, or even before, this doesn't really matter I think.
Thanks,
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