[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5723C5FC.5090302@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 13:37:16 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Sai Praneeth Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@...el.com>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/10] x86/xsaves: Fix XSAVES known issues
On 04/29/2016 01:07 PM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 01:03:43PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>> That's not feasible. Think of dynamic libraries or just-in-time
>>> compilers. What instruction set does /usr/bin/java use, for
>>> instance? :)
> The java argument is true. In that case or when the bitmask is
> missing, we can allocate for all supported features.
Remember, execve() doesn't replace the task_struct. How do we resize
the task_struct at execve() time? If /bin/bash doesn't use AVX, then
fork()s and execve()s an AVX-using program, what do we do?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists