[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180711162850.52jmzsuwegpk7rag@breakpoint.cc>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 18:28:51 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, riel@...riel.com,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: Lazy FPU restoration / moving kernel_fpu_end() to context switch
On 2018-06-15 22:33:47 [+0200], Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 8:32 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
> > quite in the form you imagined. The idea that we've tossed around is
> > to restore FPU state on return to user mode. Roughly, we'd introduce
> > a new thread flag TIF_FPU_UNLOADED (name TBD).
> > prepare_exit_to_usermode() would notice this flag, copy the fpstate to
> > fpregs, and clear the flag. (Or maybe exit_to_usermode_loop() -- No
> > one has quite thought it through, but I think it should be outside the
> > loop.) We'd update all the FPU accessors to understand the flag.
>
> Yes! This is exactly what I was thinking. Then those calls to begin()
> and end() could be placed as close to the actual FPU usage as
> possible.
I was thinking about this myself. Did anyone try to hack something in
the meantime? I might want to look into this, too :)
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists