From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1758306AbbA2VfH (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 29 Jan 2015 16:35:07 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54442 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751934AbbA2VfF (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 29 Jan 2015 16:35:05 -0500
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 22:33:46 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Suresh Siddha <sbsiddha@gmail.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3]: x86, fpu: unlazy_fpu fixes/cleanups
Message-ID: <20150129213346.GA32511@redhat.com>
References: <54C2A245.4010307@redhat.com> <20150129210723.GA31584@redhat.com> <54CAA357.1070108@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <54CAA357.1070108@linux.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 01/29, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> On 01/29/2015 01:07 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 01/23, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >> > Not only is this broken with my new code, but it looks like it may
> >> > be broken with the current code, too...
> > Lets (try to) fix unlazy_fpu/save_init_fpu at least.
> >
> > Dave, fpu_save_init() in do_bounds() and task_get_bounds_dir() looks
> > wrong too, shouldn't it use unlazy_fpu() ? See the changelog in 3/3.
>
> IIRC, the 'cpu_has_xsaveopt' on the CPUs that support will MPX will
> enable eagerfpu.

unless eagerfpu=off? but this doesn't matter.

> It's a bit of an indirect way to avoid the WARN_ON()
> and probably needs a better comment.

I don't think it is safe to assume that current has FPU even if eagerfpu.
And note that Rik is working on patches which can change this rule.

Or I misunderstood?

Oleg.