From: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, mingo@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org,
bp@alien8.de, fenghua.yu@intel.com, tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] x86, fpu: check CPU-provided sizes against struct declarations
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 09:02:51 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55E0862B.1030907@sr71.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150828052500.GH25556@gmail.com>
On 08/27/2015 10:25 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> wrote:
>> @@ -447,6 +492,14 @@ static void do_extra_xstate_size_checks(
>> paranoid_xstate_size += xfeature_size(i);
>> }
>> XSTATE_WARN_ON(paranoid_xstate_size != xstate_size);
>> + /*
>> + * Basically, make sure that XSTATE_RESERVE has forced
>> + * xregs_state to be large enough. This is not fatal
>> + * because we reserve a *lot* of extra room in the init
>> + * task struct, but we should at least know we got it
>> + * wrong.
>> + */
>> + XSTATE_WARN_ON(xstate_size > sizeof(struct xregs_state));
>
> So do we need to warn about this? arch_task_struct_size is already dynamic today.
I'm unsure what _actually_ blew up, but I missed adding protection keys
and AVX-512 to XSTATE_RESERVE and the kernel crashed the first time I
did a non-init-state-PKRU XSAVE.
> The only problem would be the init task, which is allocated statically - can we
> fix that?
We could theoretically make it dynamic, but I'm really not sure it's
worth the trouble. I just removed the init_task=INIT_TASK()
initialization to see what would happen and something blew up early
(last I saw on the console was the "early console in setup code").
The current size of the non-XSAVE data in task_struct is ~2k. The xsave
data is 800-something bytes, so say ~1k. Our init_task ends up being
~6k, 3k of which is wasted. On an AVX-512 CPU, that means 1k of waste.
>From how early things died, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that
we'll need to bootmem alloc our new dynamic init_task and probably can't
practically wait for the slab to show up. Bootmem can only do full
pages, so our 6k can be trimmed to 4k. On an AVX-512 CPU, the 6k goes
*up* to 8k.
It doesn't look like a fun exercise for 2k of memory savings.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-28 16:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-27 17:11 [PATCH 00/11] [v2] x86, fpu: XSAVE cleanups and sanity checks Dave Hansen
2015-08-27 17:11 ` [PATCH 01/11] x86, fpu: kill LWP support Dave Hansen
2015-08-28 4:50 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-08-27 17:11 ` [PATCH 03/11] x86, fpu: rework XSTATE_* macros to remove magic '2' Dave Hansen
2015-08-27 17:11 ` [PATCH 02/11] x86, fpu: rename xfeature_bit Dave Hansen
2015-08-28 5:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-08-27 17:11 ` [PATCH 04/11] x86, fpu: remove xfeature_nr Dave Hansen
2015-08-28 5:06 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-08-27 17:11 ` [PATCH 05/11] x86, fpu: add helper xfeature_nr_enabled() instead of test_bit() Dave Hansen
2015-08-28 5:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-08-27 17:11 ` [PATCH 06/11] x86, fpu: rework MPX 'xstate' types Dave Hansen
2015-08-27 17:11 ` [PATCH 07/11] x86, fpu: rework YMM definition Dave Hansen
2015-08-27 17:11 ` [PATCH 08/11] x86, fpu: add C structures for AVX-512 state components Dave Hansen
2015-08-28 5:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-08-27 17:11 ` [PATCH 10/11] x86, fpu: check to ensure increasing-offset xstate offsets Dave Hansen
2015-08-27 17:11 ` [PATCH 09/11] x86, fpu: correct and check XSAVE xstate size calculations Dave Hansen
2015-08-28 4:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-08-28 14:31 ` Dave Hansen
2015-08-28 16:44 ` Andi Kleen
2015-08-27 17:11 ` [PATCH 11/11] x86, fpu: check CPU-provided sizes against struct declarations Dave Hansen
2015-08-28 5:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-08-28 16:02 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2015-08-28 5:18 ` [PATCH 00/11] [v2] x86, fpu: XSAVE cleanups and sanity checks Ingo Molnar
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-08-25 20:12 [PATCH 00/11] " Dave Hansen
2015-08-25 20:12 ` [PATCH 11/11] x86, fpu: check CPU-provided sizes against struct declarations Dave Hansen
2015-08-26 16:18 ` Tim Chen
2015-08-26 16:19 ` Dave Hansen
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=55E0862B.1030907@sr71.net \
--to=dave@sr71.net \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=fenghua.yu@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--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.