Re: [RFC] FPU context switch

[Jun Sun <jsun@mvista.com>]

On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 10:38:38AM +0200, Kevin D. Kissell wrote:
> From: "Jun Sun" <jsun@mvista.com>
> > On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 01:44:57AM +0200, Kevin D. Kissell wrote:
> > > 
> > > I'd much prefer something that is simple and processor-local,
> > > even if it may be less optimal in some corner cases.  For example,
> > > Why not simply use CP0.Status.CU1 as a "dirty" bit?  If it's set 
> > > when a process switches out, the FPU state gets saved, and CU1 
> > > cleared.  If it's not set when a process hits an FP instruction, 
> > > CU1 gets set and the context gets loaded. This involves no 
> > > access whatever to shared control variables, indeed, it doesn't 
> > > even go to memory to make the decision. It will, of course, save 
> > > some FP contexts that don't need saving, but it is well behaved
> > > in the cases I care most about - it avoids saving/restoring FPRs
> > > of code that is doing no FP whatsoever, and it ensures that
> > > whenever a thread starts up, whatever CPU its on, its full
> > > context is available to that CPU, no (coherent) questions asked.
> > > 
> > 
> > This is basically 2) except for dirty bit difference.
> > 
> > My current implementaion uses bit:1 in task->used_math flag for 
> > "dirty" bit purpose.
> 
> Which is not a property of the CPU, but of the thread,
> meaning that it will be written by one CPU and read by
> another, i.e. there will be MP memory traffic and cache
> interventions/invalidations/misses around the operation.
>

In all places the task is "current" process.  Therefore no inter-processor
traffic.

Obiviously it is still less desriable than a bit in cpu regiters....

Jun