[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210119110834.GH27433@zn.tnic>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 12:08:34 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Krzysztof Mazur <krzysiek@...lesie.net>,
Krzysztof Olędzki <ole@....pl>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86/fpu: Add kernel_fpu_begin_mask() to selectively
initialize state
Just nitpicks:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 10:20:38PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Currently, requesting kernel FPU access doesn't distinguish which parts of
> the extended ("FPU") state are needed. This is nice for simplicity, but
> there are a few cases in which it's suboptimal:
>
> - The vast majority of in-kernel FPU users want XMM/YMM/ZMM state but do
> not use legacy 387 state. These users want MXCSR initialized but don't
> care about the FPU control word. Skipping FNINIT would save time.
> (Empirically, FNINIT is several times slower than LDMXCSR.)
>
> - Code that wants MMX doesn't want need MXCSR or FCW initialized.
"want/need" ?
> _mmx_memcpy(), for example, can run before CR4.OSFXSR gets set, and
> initializing MXCSR will fail.
"... because LDMXCSR generates an #UD when the aforementioned CR4 bit is
not set."
> - Any future in-kernel users of XFD (eXtended Feature Disable)-capable
> dynamic states will need special handling.
>
> This patch adds a more specific API that allows callers specify exactly
s/This patch adds/Add/
> what they want.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists