[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YAgAz4qYESIv8iNR@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 11:07:11 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] x86/fpu/64: Don't FNINIT in kernel_fpu_begin()
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 09:39:02AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> The remaining callers of kernel_fpu_begin() in 64-bit kernels don't use 387
> instructions, so there's no need to sanitize the FPU state. Skip it to get
> most of the performance we lost back.
>
> Reported-by: Krzysztof Olędzki <ole@....pl>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/api.h | 12 ++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/api.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/api.h
> index 38f4936045ab..435bc59d539b 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/api.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/api.h
> @@ -32,7 +32,19 @@ extern void fpregs_mark_activate(void);
> /* Code that is unaware of kernel_fpu_begin_mask() can use this */
> static inline void kernel_fpu_begin(void)
> {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> + /*
> + * Any 64-bit code that uses 387 instructions must explicitly request
> + * KFPU_387.
> + */
> + kernel_fpu_begin_mask(KFPU_MXCSR);
I'm also still sitting on this:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/peterz/queue.git x86/fpu
what do we do with that?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists