[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250306120947.GF16878@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 13:09:47 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>,
Xiao Liang <shaw.leon@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"Jason A . Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] x86/fpu: make kernel-mode FPU reliably usable in
softirqs
On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:07:45AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
> > Alternatives considered:
> >
> > - Make kernel-mode FPU sections fully preemptible. This would require
> > growing task_struct by another struct fpstate which is more than 2K.
>
> So that's something that will probably happen once the kernel is built
> using APX anyway?
ISTR looking into this at some point for RT. I also have vague memories
of other architectures doing something similar, but its all a long time
ago.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists