[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150529161036.GK31435@pd.tnic>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 18:10:36 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Suresh Siddha <sbsiddha@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/19] x86, fpu: Wrap get_xsave_addr() to make it safer
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 06:05:33PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I would propose that we take the opposite approach and just ban
> eagerfpu=off when MPX is enabled. We could then take the next step
> and default eagerfpu=on for everyone and, if nothing breaks, then just
> delete lazy mode entirely.
>
> I suspect we'd have to go back to Pentium 3 or earlier to find a CPU
> on which lazy mode is actually a good idea.
Last time I checked (and ran some benchmarks) it was only a minute
slowdown so I say we kill lazy mode if it means significant code
complexity drop.
Can I also emulate Greg here and suggest that Pentium 3 people should
buy newer hw? They should think about the environment, if nothing else.
:-P
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
--
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