[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87r1i06ow2.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 18:19:09 +0200
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen via Libc-alpha <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Keno Fischer <keno@...iacomputing.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Subject: Re: Candidate Linux ABI for Intel AMX and hypothetical new related
features
* Dave Hansen:
> On 5/21/21 7:44 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Dave Hansen via Libc-alpha:
>>> Our system calls are *REALLY* fast. We can even do a vsyscall for this
>>> if we want to get the overhead down near zero. Userspace can also cache
>>> the "I did the prctl()" state in thread-local storage if it wants to
>>> avoid the syscall.
>> Why can't userspace look at XCR0 to make the decision?
>
> The thing we're trying to avoid is a #NM exception from XFD (the new
> first-use detection feature) that occurs on the first use of AMX.
> XCR0 will have XCR0[AMX]=1, even if XFD is "armed" and ready to
> generate the #NM.
I see. So essentially the hardware wants to offer transparent
initialize-on-use, but Linux does not seem to want to implement it this
way.
Is there still a chance to bring the hardware and Linux into alignment?
Thanks,
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists