All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@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?
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 15:50:17 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <54C7FA09.4000908@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54C7F4BB.5020509@redhat.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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 suggests it may be advantageous to be liberal with
__thread_fpu_end() when we know user space will not be touching
the FPU again for a while, since that would reduce the work
done by __kernel_fpu_begin()/__kernel_fpu_end().

Does that make sense?

- -- 
All rights reversed
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUx/oJAAoJEM553pKExN6Dh4YH/AtVOza5VeZuz55s59LifpLt
5eXMQBxQt0JiX9NACc+7qXDuEFfkmnzhNpNT98abuic7/1dvj2TfcoXSnkysDaNb
WojFW0gMc973G4UA6ZPsqScxz7jdfaqNrFdFEaTPM6URClIllVXTgnCcDoWCFfR2
627s6vyOW//BgXnedHraGGqnBVpCBLWrsVnhJ0RbPd2cjrrwKPXcbLnk6+uzZqLY
/7Zp2fSDjuAY6PhxRZM529vyJNqIM2mhlKFG8/xnch95mlXwtOQvLuuJmkwbKabb
6Z1gqpyEXbWyB2riD/pQrIlkOg2P4UuLONM7fgFY4Dzc8MEM7UmNR4mWoPAeBuU=
=SSqD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  reply	other threads:[~2015-01-27 20:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 61+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-01-23 19:34 question about save_xstate_sig() - WHY DOES THIS WORK? Rik van Riel
2015-01-23 20:51 ` [PATCH, RFC] x86,fpu: make signal handling xstate save & restore preemption safe Rik van Riel
2015-01-23 21:07 ` question about save_xstate_sig() - WHY DOES THIS WORK? H. Peter Anvin
2015-01-24 13:39   ` Rik van Riel
2015-01-24 20:20 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-01-26 23:27   ` Rik van Riel
2015-01-27 19:40     ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-01-27 20:27       ` Rik van Riel
2015-01-27 20:50         ` Rik van Riel [this message]
2015-01-29 21:01           ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-01-29 20:45         ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-01-29 20:52           ` Rik van Riel
2015-01-29 21:00           ` [PATCH RFC] x86,fpu: merge save_init_fpu & unlazy_fpu Rik van Riel
2015-01-29 21:21             ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-01-29 21:07 ` [PATCH 0/3]: x86, fpu: unlazy_fpu fixes/cleanups Oleg Nesterov
2015-01-29 21:07   ` [PATCH 1/3] x86, fpu: unlazy_fpu: don't reset thread.fpu_counter Oleg Nesterov
2015-01-29 21:26     ` Rik van Riel
2015-01-29 21:08   ` [PATCH 2/3] x86, fpu: unlazy_fpu: don't do __thread_fpu_end() if use_eager_fpu() Oleg Nesterov
2015-01-29 21:36     ` Rik van Riel
2015-01-29 21:49       ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-01-29 21:53         ` Rik van Riel
2015-01-29 21:54     ` Rik van Riel
2015-01-29 21:08   ` [PATCH 3/3] x86, fpu: kill save_init_fpu(), change math_error() to use unlazy_fpu() Oleg Nesterov
2015-01-29 21:54     ` Rik van Riel
2015-01-29 21:17   ` [PATCH 0/3]: x86, fpu: unlazy_fpu fixes/cleanups Dave Hansen
2015-01-29 21:33     ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-01-29 21:43       ` Dave Hansen
2015-01-29 21:56         ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-01-29 21:58           ` Rik van Riel
2015-01-29 23:26           ` Dave Hansen
2015-01-30  1:33             ` Rik van Riel
2015-02-02 18:11               ` Dave Hansen
2015-01-30 12:45             ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-01-30 13:30               ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-01-30 13:43                 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-01-30 17:49   ` [PATCH 0/3] cleanups to the disable lazy fpu restore code riel
2015-01-30 17:49     ` [PATCH 1/3] x86,fpu: move lazy restore functions up a few lines riel
2015-01-30 17:49     ` [PATCH 2/3] x86,fpu: introduce task_disable_lazy_fpu_restore helper riel
2015-01-30 17:49     ` [PATCH 3/3] x86,fpu: use disable_task_lazy_fpu_restore helper riel
2015-01-30 21:46       ` Dave Hansen
2015-01-30 21:48         ` Rik van Riel
2015-02-02 17:56         ` Rik van Riel
2015-02-02 18:00   ` [PATCH 0/6] cleanups to lazy FPU restore code riel
2015-02-02 18:00     ` [PATCH 1/6] x86,fpu: move lazy restore functions up a few lines riel
2015-02-02 18:00     ` [PATCH 2/6] x86,fpu: introduce task_disable_lazy_fpu_restore helper riel
2015-02-02 18:00     ` [PATCH 3/6] x86,fpu: use an explicit if/else in switch_fpu_prepare riel
2015-02-02 18:00     ` [PATCH 4/6] x86,fpu: use disable_task_lazy_fpu_restore helper riel
2015-02-02 19:21       ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-02-02 19:43         ` Rik van Riel
2015-02-03 19:08           ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-02-03 22:01             ` Rik van Riel
2015-02-06 16:42         ` Rik van Riel
2015-02-02 18:00     ` [PATCH 5/6] x86,fpu: also check fpu_lazy_restore when use_eager_fpu riel
2015-02-02 18:55       ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-02-02 19:19         ` Rik van Riel
2015-02-02 18:00     ` [PATCH 6/6] x86,fpu: remove redundant increments of fpu_counter riel
2015-02-02 18:34       ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-02-02 18:40         ` Rik van Riel
2015-02-18 23:40           ` Ingo Molnar
2015-02-18 23:54             ` Borislav Petkov
2015-02-19 20:09             ` Oleg Nesterov

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=54C7FA09.4000908@redhat.com \
    --to=riel@redhat.com \
    --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=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --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.