[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <503456C0.9000203@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 20:49:20 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: bhutchings@...arflare.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com,
x86@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86_64: Define 128-bit memory-mapped I/O operations
On 08/21/2012 08:29 PM, David Miller wrote:
>
> What we do is we have a FPU stack that grows up from the end of the
> thread_info struct, towards the bottom of the kernel stack.
>
We have 8K of kernel stack, and an xstate which is pushing a kilobyte
already. This seems like a nightmare. Even if we allocate a larger
stack for this sole purpose, we'd have to put a pretty hard cap on how
far it could grow.
> Slot 0 is always the user FPU state.
>
> Slot 1 and further are kernel FPU state save areas.
>
> We hold a counter which keep track of how far deeply saved we are
> in the stack.
>
> Not for the purpose of space saving, but for overhead reduction we
> sometimes can get away with only saving away half of the FPU
> registers. The chip provides a pair of dirty bits, one for the lower
> half of the FPU register file and one for the upper half. We only
> save the bits that are actually dirty.
>
> Furthermore, when we have FPU using code in the kernel that only uses
> the lower half of the registers, we only save away that part of the
> state around the routine.
This is messy on x86; it is somewhat doable but it gets really hairy
because of the monolithic [f]xsave/[f]xrstor instruction.
-hpa
--
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