[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <39ab2f2b-81bb-636e-933d-f3a5225aa020@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 12:54:49 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] x86: load FPU registers on return to userland
On 1/15/19 12:26 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I don't think we'd ever want kernel_fpu_end() to restore anything,
> right? I'm a bit confused as to when this optimization would actually
> be useful.
Using AVX-512 as an example...
Let's say there was AVX-512 state, and a kernel_fpu_begin() user only
used AVX2. We could totally avoid doing *any* AVX-512 state save/restore.
The init optimization doesn't help us if there _is_ AVX-512 state, and
the modified optimization only helps if we recently did a XRSTOR at
context switch and have not written to AVX-512 state since XRSTOR.
This probably only matters for AVX-512-using apps that have run on a
kernel with lots of kernel_fpu_begin()s that don't use AVX-512. So, not
a big deal right now.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists