From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 633F5267F7E for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2025 10:51:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744282297; cv=none; b=SgxAC9PZb4JctmA8NfJiJfZ/bFnAVstGsZC/1O9zcQHKASt/MLfx3VL57JhYIge58GqawVA5b3OFpSgkz/no/NF0RWu040u4lmzgjbvDJR3xrcZnVkr6P5f6IJHqZqTmMhuRMlokl3m8bJzms46KgZGuy+RRh54jSA2ByxG3VI0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744282297; c=relaxed/simple; bh=cV/IuJuyobXK5kMrKi7lQuLAWisaQPLN5V2EQPAIr/U=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=MaRd+JY6V28u/0N8ThmKYc7wsf6Ym886zLI6xucFljcxlwU/xJHYU+gdqKQOVfi8wlPb4b6/65UsracPUM9Fsnj4mix2OPHiuZio2S7kaZfL5z+o2oJzX1y6YbF5Dnz5tc5ytaZMw3PA/Zl99mCtOwa5cq8Nkh9IPRWf7risGS0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=GALSyyg9; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="GALSyyg9" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7CF22C4CEE9; Thu, 10 Apr 2025 10:51:33 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1744282296; bh=cV/IuJuyobXK5kMrKi7lQuLAWisaQPLN5V2EQPAIr/U=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=GALSyyg9rTQYC9iHKaNuaF6SDWR2TIgS1NHtqxlqL+xLfI5IhyLaH0mz6fDbxm3ri 6F2bUj7AXuUfBlKYw3OQ7Y2PY9Nw7FHc7Zt61qmsLYTfTP93RkXELgJ0E82ISvg5RY dPFHhYDbGGxgDiyNXFgbJsVfds4CuoC+1Vn0cWYoYO3zq5WzSs8JnMKqVKZ7c05V+T YNzw56fkodt/3AkvaFBwg/AEzGL5jIPWvm5/vfjyxJjc45IkSNsholrR66gdZC17HH faOnJsMlIl80XK+Cw3A/3Z1ut+EQFdP2t2p9Rb0QJ9nlcOX/a7j17BdxuFvzUUjzZ5 0+6/eAmDVMy+Q== Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 12:51:31 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski , Dave Hansen , Brian Gerst , Borislav Petkov , "H . Peter Anvin" , Linus Torvalds , Oleg Nesterov , Thomas Gleixner , "Chang S . Bae" , Andy Lutomirski , Fenghua Yu , Dave Hansen , Uros Bizjak Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] x86/fpu: Remove the thread::fpu pointer Message-ID: References: <20250409211127.3544993-1-mingo@kernel.org> <20250409211127.3544993-5-mingo@kernel.org> <20250410073948.GT9833@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: * Ingo Molnar wrote: > BTW., Oleg suggested in a previous discussion for us to replace the > task->thread.fpu pointer with a build-time calculation - but I'm > still not sure it's a good idea. Actually, I've implemented that already: arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h:# define x86_task_fpu(task) ((struct fpu *)((void *)(task) + sizeof(*(task)))) ... then promptly forgot about it. So never mind me. :-) Thanks, Ingo