[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190214103449.GN3567@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 10:34:52 +0000
From: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Julien Grall <julien.grall@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] arm64/fpsimd: Don't disable softirq when touching
FPSIMD/SVE state
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 05:52:27PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2019-02-13 16:40:00 [+0100], Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > > This is equal what x86 is currently doing. The naming is slightly
> > > > different, there is irq_fpu_usable().
> > >
> > > Yes, I think it's basically the same idea.
> > >
> > > It's been evolving a bit on both sides, but is quite similar now.
> > >
> >
> > may_use_simd() only exists because we have a generic crypto SIMD
> > helper, and so we needed something arch agnostic to wrap around
> > irq_fpu_usable()
>
> My question was more if this is helpful and we want to keep or if
> it would be better to remove it and always disable BH as part of SIMD
> operations.
Wouldn't this arbitrarily increase softirq latency? Unconditionally
forbidding SIMD in softirq might make more sense. It depends on how
important the use cases are...
Cheers
---Dave
Powered by blists - more mailing lists