[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171201113235.6tmkwtov5cg2locv@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 12:32:35 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT v2] crypto: limit more FPU-enabled sections
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 11:44:22AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> --- a/arch/x86/crypto/camellia_aesni_avx2_glue.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/crypto/camellia_aesni_avx2_glue.c
> @@ -206,6 +206,34 @@ struct crypt_priv {
> bool fpu_enabled;
> };
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL
> +static void camellia_fpu_end_rt(struct crypt_priv *ctx)
> +{
> + bool fpu_enabled = ctx->fpu_enabled;
> +
> + if (!fpu_enabled)
> + return;
> + camellia_fpu_end(fpu_enabled);
> + ctx->fpu_enabled = false;
> +}
> +
> +static void camellia_fpu_sched_rt(struct crypt_priv *ctx)
> +{
> + bool fpu_enabled = ctx->fpu_enabled;
> +
> + if (!fpu_enabled || !tif_need_resched_now())
> + return;
> + camellia_fpu_end(fpu_enabled);
> + kernel_fpu_end();
> + /* schedule due to preemptible */
> + kernel_fpu_begin();
> +}
There's a ton of duplication in there; you're not nearly lazy enough.
Why can't we do something simple like kernel_fpu_resched() ?
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/fpu/core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/fpu/core.c
index f92a6593de1e..05321b98a55a 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/fpu/core.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/fpu/core.c
@@ -130,6 +130,18 @@ void kernel_fpu_begin(void)
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kernel_fpu_begin);
+void kernel_fpu_resched(void)
+{
+ WARN_ON_FPU(!this_cpu_read(in_kernel_fpu));
+
+ if (should_resched(PREEMPT_OFFSET)) {
+ kernel_fpu_end();
+ cond_resched();
+ kernel_fpu_begin();
+ }
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kernel_fpu_resched);
+
void kernel_fpu_end(void)
{
__kernel_fpu_end();
Powered by blists - more mailing lists