[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250422161108.GA1676@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 18:11:08 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Chang S . Bae" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v5 0/8] sched: Make task_struct::thread constant size,
x86/fpu: Remove thread::fpu
Ingo, sorry for delay.
So just in case, the whole series looks good to me. I am going to send a
couple of minor cleanups on top of it, but let me ask first if I missed
something or not.
- x86_init_fpu is not really used after 4/8, it can be killed
- DEFINE_EVENT(x86_fpu, x86_fpu_copy_src) can be killed after 7/8
- arch_dup_task_struct() still does
/* init_task is not dynamically sized (incomplete FPU state) */
if (unlikely(src == &init_task))
memcpy_and_pad(dst, arch_task_struct_size, src, sizeof(init_task), 0);
else
memcpy(dst, src, arch_task_struct_size);
and I don't understand why do we need to check src == &init_task. It seems
that we can always do
memcpy_and_pad(dst, arch_task_struct_size, src, sizeof(struct task_struct), 0);
or even just
memcpy(dst, src, sizeof(struct task_struct));
fpu_clone() will initialize the "dst_fpu" memory correctly.
- fpu__drop() does
/* PF_KTHREAD tasks do not use the FPU context area: */
if (tsk->flags & (PF_KTHREAD | PF_USER_WORKER))
return;
and this is correct. But perhaps
if (test_tsk_thread_flag(tsk, TIF_NEED_FPU_LOAD))
return;
makes more sense? PF_KTHREAD's should never clear TIF_NEED_FPU_LOAD,
and this way we can avoid the unnecessary "fwait" if, say, the exiting
task does context_switch() at least once on its way to exit_thread().
- Finally, with or without these changes, it seems that the
switch_fpu_prepare() + switch_fpu_finish() logic can be simplified,
I'll write another email.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists