[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHmME9pTPzCzZSVaO5vKT+0gaZwu424v4AzBMfM1opAdwkMbYg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 12:39:45 +0100
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: irq_fpu_usable() is irreliable
Hi folks,
The availability of the FPU in kernel space, as you know, is
determined by this function:
bool irq_fpu_usable(void)
{
return !in_interrupt() ||
interrupted_user_mode() ||
interrupted_kernel_fpu_idle();
}
My understanding is that the first check is !in_interrupt(), because
if `current` is valid - if we are in process context - then we have a
place to store the existing FPU regs in kernel_fpu_begin, to be
restored later in kernel_fpu_end. Recently I've been tracking down a
problem in which irq_fpu_usable() returns false, yet a stack trace
shows the first function is the syscall entry point. This leads me to
believe that in_interrupt() is not an adequate way of testing for a
valid `current`. In my particular problematic case, the reason
in_interrupt() was returning false is because a number of
rcu_read_lock_bh()s were being held; IOW this is occurring in the
ndo_start_xmit path of a network driver.
I therefore propose changing the function to this:
bool irq_fpu_usable(void)
{
return (!in_irq() && !in_nmi()) ||
interrupted_user_mode() ||
interrupted_kernel_fpu_idle();
}
What would you think of that?
Thanks,
Jason
--
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