Re: [PATCH 0/4] Really lazy fpu

[Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1059 bytes --]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 18:03:43 +0300, Avi Kivity said:
> Currently fpu management is only lazy in one direction.  When we switch into
> a task, we may avoid loading the fpu state in the hope that the task will
> never use it.  If we guess right we save an fpu load/save cycle; if not,
> a Device not Available exception will remind us to load the fpu.
> 
> However, in the other direction, fpu management is eager.  When we switch out
> of an fpu-using task, we always save its fpu state.

Does anybody have numbers on how many clocks it takes a modern CPU design
to do a FPU state save or restore?  I know it must have been painful in the
days before cache memory, having to make added trips out to RAM for 128-bit
registers.  But what's the impact today? (Yes, I see there's the potential
for a painful IPI call - anything else?)

Do we have any numbers on how many saves/restores this will save us when
running the hypothetical "standard Gnome desktop" environment?  How common
is the "we went all the way around to the original single FPU-using task" case?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]