[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1345601051.2659.93.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.solarflarecom.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 03:04:11 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com>, <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86_64: Define 128-bit memory-mapped I/O operations
On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 18:37 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 08/21/2012 06:23 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > Define reado(), writeo() and their raw counterparts using SSE.
> >
> > Based on work by Stuart Hodgson <smhodgson@...arflare.com>.
>
> It would be vastly better if we explicitly controlled this with
> kernel_fpu_begin()/kernel_fpu_end() rather than hiding it in primitives
> than might tempt the user to do very much the wrong thing.
>
> Also, it needs to be extremely clear to the user that these operations
> use the FPU, and all the requirements there need to be met, including
> not using them at interrupt time.
Well we can sometimes use the FPU state at IRQ time, can't we
(irq_fpu_usable())? So we might need, say, try_reado() and
try_writeo() with callers expected to fall back to alternatives. (Which
they must have anyway for any architecture that doesn't support this.)
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists