[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ec7b8f81-98ea-539c-c1b9-abf103e45b30@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2023 10:46:15 -0700
From: "Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Adamos Ttofari <attofari@...zon.de>
CC: <abusse@...zon.de>, <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>, <hborghor@...zon.de>,
<sironi@...zon.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fpu: xstate: Keep xfd_state always in-sync with IA32_XFD
MSR
On 5/11/2023 12:11 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, May 11 2023 at 15:28, Adamos Ttofari wrote:
>
>> @@ -915,7 +921,7 @@ void fpu__resume_cpu(void)
>> }
>>
>> if (fpu_state_size_dynamic())
>> - wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_XFD, current->thread.fpu.fpstate->xfd);
>> + xfd_update_state(&init_fpstate);
xfd_update_state() here is not a right choice as Thomas pointed out
multiple times.
> On suspend per CPU xfd_state == current->thread.fpu.fpstate->xfd so it's
> correct to restore the exact state which was active _before_ suspend.
> xfd_state can't be out of sync in that case, no?
Indeed! But, looking around the code, writing 'xfd_state' here appears
to be consistent and logical I suppose.
Every time writing the MSR in the kernel (except for the init), the
value is saved in 'xfd_state'. So we don't do it on the sleep path.
Then, on the wake-up path, perhaps it makes sense to restore the context
with the saved.
Thanks,
Chang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists