From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757577AbbA2VCd (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 29 Jan 2015 16:02:33 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:44012 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753333AbbA2VCb (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 29 Jan 2015 16:02:31 -0500
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 22:01:18 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: question about save_xstate_sig() - WHY DOES THIS WORK?
Message-ID: <20150129210118.GB30530@redhat.com>
References: <54C2A245.4010307@redhat.com> <20150124202021.GA1285@redhat.com> <54C6CD64.10208@redhat.com> <20150127194030.GA29879@redhat.com> <54C7F4BB.5020509@redhat.com> <54C7FA09.4000908@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <54C7FA09.4000908@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 01/27, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> On 01/27/2015 03:27 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On 01/27/2015 02:40 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> >>>> - Why unlazy_fpu() always does __save_init_fpu() even if
> >>>> use_eager_fpu?
> >>>>
> >>>> and note that in this case __thread_fpu_end() is wrong if
> >>>> use_eager_fpu, but fortunately the only possible caller of
> >>>> unlazy_fpu() is coredump. fpu_copy() checks use_eager_fpu().
> >>>>
> >>>> - Is unlazy_fpu()->__save_init_fpu() safe wrt
> >>>> __kernel_fpu_begin() from irq?
> >
> > It looks like it should be safe, as long as __save_init_fpu() knows
> > that the task no longer has the FPU after __kernel_fpu_end(), so it
> > does not try to save the kernel FPU state to the user's
> > task->thread.fpu.state->xstate
> >
> > The caveat here is that __kernel_fpu_begin()/__kernel_fpu_end()
> > needs to be kept from running during unlazy_fpu().
> >
> > This means interrupted_kernel_fpu_idle and/or irq_fpu_usable need
> > to check whether preemption is disabled, and lock out
> > __kernel_fpu_begin() when preemption is disabled.
> >
> > It does not look like it currently does that...
>
> ... and that won't work, because preempt_disable() is a noop
> without CONFIG_PREEMPT enabled. Sigh.
>
> Not sure how to work around that, except by having
> __Kernel_fpu_end() always restore the task FPU state, if the
> task had the FPU when entering.

This is what it does after

	[PATCH 2/3] x86, fpu: don't abuse ->has_fpu in __kernel_fpu_{begin,end}()
	http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=142134967718861&w=2

(acked by you and already applied).

But probably I misunderstood you, I do not see how this can help...
OK, lets discuss this later.

Oleg.