[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1475526171.4622.9.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2016 16:22:51 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: x86@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, pbonzini@...hat.com,
mingo@...hat.com, luto@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, bp@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 4/5] x86,fpu: lazily skip FPU restore when still
loaded
On Mon, 2016-10-03 at 13:04 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 10/01/2016 01:31 PM, riel@...hat.com wrote:
> >
> > /*
> > + * Check whether an FPU's register set is still loaded in the CPU.
> > + */
> > +static inline bool fpu_lazy_skip_restore(struct fpu *fpu)
> > +{
> > + bool still_loaded = (fpu->fpstate_active &&
> > + fpu->last_cpu ==
> > raw_smp_processor_id() &&
> > + __this_cpu_read(fpu_fpregs_owner_ctx)
> > == fpu);
> > +
> > + fpu->fpregs_active = still_loaded;
> > + return still_loaded;
> > +}
> I wonder if we should call this something more along the lines of
> fpregs_activate_fast(), which returns if it managed to do the
> activation
> fast or not. I _think_ that's more along the lines of what it is
> actually doing. The fact that it can be lazy is really an
> implementation detail.
>
> What are the preempt rules with this thing? This needs to be called
> in
> preempt-disabled contexts, right?
Indeed, all the FPU context switching code needs
to be called in preempt-disabled contexts.
You do not want to get preempted halfway through
saving or restoring floating point registers.
--
All rights reversed
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists