netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86_64: Define 128-bit memory-mapped I/O operations

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20120821.211427.1832042852041589162.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:14:27 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	hpa@...or.com
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, bhutchings@...arflare.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, 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

From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 20:59:26 -0700

> kernel_fpu_end() would still have to re-enable preemption (and
> preemption would have to check the work flag), but that should be cheap.
> 
> We could allow the FPU in the kernel to have preemption, if we allocated
> space for two xstates per thread instead of one.  That is, however, a
> fair hunk of memory.

Once you have done the first FPU save for the sake of the kernel, you
can minimize what you save for any deeper nesting because the kernel
only cares about a very limited part of that FPU state not the whole
1K thing.

Those bits you can save by hand with a bunch of explicit stores of the
XMM registers, or something like that.
--
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