From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, oleg@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de,
riel@redhat.com, sbsiddha@gmail.com, luto@amacapital.net,
mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, fenghua.yu@intel.com,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/19] x86, fpu: Wrap get_xsave_addr() to make it safer
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 17:01:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150528150114.GA10146@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <556729FE.1020007@sr71.net>
* Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> wrote:
> On 05/28/2015 01:41 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > What you want here is to make the (in-memory) FPU state valid and current,
> > before reading it, and the function to use for that is
> > fpu__activate_fpstate_read() (available in the latest tip:x86/fpu tree).
>
> Do we really want to unconditionally activate the FPU?
>
> Let's say supporting MPX didn't require eager mode and someone called
> get_xsave_addr(). We would ideally want to keep the FPU inactive and just
> return NULL. Right?
So there's two distinct types of 'active' here:
- active fpstate (in-kernel memory context buffer)
- active fpregs (in-FPU hardware registers)
fpu__activate_fpstate_read() will only activate the fpstate for reads (as the name
suggests it).
In your hypothetical case, if it's called with lazy FPU state then the fpstate is
active already, and the fpstate represents the 'real' FPU state of the current
task - while the FPU's contents are still some previous task's FPU state. So we
can return the contents of this task's fpstate just fine even if the registers
themselves are not (yet) loaded with them.
But the real question is: can we support in-use MPX with asynchronous lazy
restore, while it's still semantically correct? I don't think so, unless you add
MPX specific synchronous restore to the context switch path, which isn't such a
good idea IMHO.
Furthermore, I don't think we want to extend lazy FPU use, in fact I'm considering
getting rid of it altogether, even on old CPUs: the CR0 fault costs are horrible
all across the CPU spectrum (even for legacy CPUs), and modern user-space makes
use of the FPU all the time.
Yes, on older CPUs, if user-space does not use the FPU but context switches
frequently, then the cost of always doing FPU save/restore is measurable, but the
worst-case I've measured was something like a 10% increase in context switching
cost.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-28 15:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-27 18:36 [PATCH 00/19] x86, mpx updates for 4.2 (take 8) Dave Hansen
2015-05-27 18:36 ` [PATCH 01/19] x86, mpx, xsave: Fix up bad get_xsave_addr() assumptions Dave Hansen
2015-05-27 18:36 ` [PATCH 02/19] x86, fpu: Wrap get_xsave_addr() to make it safer Dave Hansen
2015-05-28 8:41 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-28 14:45 ` Dave Hansen
2015-05-28 15:01 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2015-05-28 16:02 ` Dave Hansen
2015-05-29 18:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-28 16:24 ` Dave Hansen
2015-05-29 1:05 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-05-29 15:31 ` Dave Hansen
2015-05-29 16:10 ` Borislav Petkov
2015-05-29 18:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-29 18:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-29 18:29 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-05-29 18:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-29 16:47 ` Dave Hansen
2015-05-29 18:48 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-27 18:36 ` [PATCH 04/19] x86, mpx: Cleanup: Do not pass task around when unnecessary Dave Hansen
2015-05-27 18:36 ` [PATCH 05/19] x86, mpx: remove redundant MPX_BNDCFG_ADDR_MASK Dave Hansen
2015-05-27 18:36 ` [PATCH 03/19] x86, mpx: Use new get_xsave_field_ptr() Dave Hansen
2015-05-27 18:36 ` [PATCH 06/19] x86, mpx: Restrict mmap size check to bounds tables Dave Hansen
2015-05-27 18:36 ` [PATCH 07/19] x86, mpx: boot-time disable Dave Hansen
2015-05-27 18:36 ` [PATCH 10/19] x86, mpx: Trace the attempts to find bounds tables Dave Hansen
2015-05-27 18:36 ` [PATCH 09/19] x86, mpx: trace entry to bounds exception paths Dave Hansen
2015-05-27 18:36 ` [PATCH 12/19] x86: make is_64bit_mm() widely available Dave Hansen
2015-05-27 18:36 ` [PATCH 11/19] x86, mpx: trace allocation of new bounds tables Dave Hansen
2015-05-27 18:36 ` [PATCH 08/19] x86, mpx: trace #BR exceptions Dave Hansen
2015-05-27 18:36 ` [PATCH 13/19] x86, mpx: Add temporary variable to reduce masking Dave Hansen
2015-05-27 18:36 ` [PATCH 14/19] x86, mpx: new directory entry to addr helper Dave Hansen
2015-05-27 18:36 ` [PATCH 17/19] x86, mpx: rewrite unmap code Dave Hansen
2015-05-27 18:36 ` [PATCH 16/19] x86, mpx: support 32-bit binaries on 64-bit kernel Dave Hansen
2015-05-27 18:36 ` [PATCH 15/19] x86, mpx: do 32-bit-only cmpxchg for 32-bit apps Dave Hansen
2015-05-27 18:36 ` [PATCH 18/19] x86, mpx: do not count MPX VMAs as neighbors when unmapping Dave Hansen
2015-05-27 18:36 ` [PATCH 19/19] x86, mpx: allow mixed binaries again Dave Hansen
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-06-07 18:37 [PATCH 00/19] x86, mpx updates for 4.2 (take 9) Dave Hansen
2015-06-07 18:37 ` [PATCH 02/19] x86, fpu: Wrap get_xsave_addr() to make it safer Dave Hansen
2015-05-29 22:34 [PATCH 00/19] x86, mpx updates for 4.2 (take 8) Dave Hansen
2015-05-29 22:34 ` [PATCH 02/19] x86, fpu: Wrap get_xsave_addr() to make it safer Dave Hansen
2015-05-19 6:25 [PATCH 00/19] x86, mpx updates for 4.2 (take 7) Dave Hansen
2015-05-19 6:25 ` [PATCH 02/19] x86, fpu: Wrap get_xsave_addr() to make it safer Dave Hansen
2015-05-19 8:15 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-05-08 18:59 [PATCH 00/19] x86, mpx updates for 4.2 (take 6) Dave Hansen
2015-05-08 18:59 ` [PATCH 02/19] x86, fpu: wrap get_xsave_addr() to make it safer Dave Hansen
2015-05-18 19:38 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-05-18 19:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150528150114.GA10146@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dave@sr71.net \
--cc=fenghua.yu@intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=sbsiddha@gmail.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.