Re: [PATCH 08/22] x86/fpu: Remove user_fpu_begin()

Borislav Petkov
2019-01-25T15:18:51Z

On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 12:47:30PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> user_fpu_begin() sets fpu_fpregs_owner_ctx to task's fpu struct. This is
> always the case since there is no lazy FPU anymore.
>
> fpu_fpregs_owner_ctx is used during context switch to decide if it needs
> to load the saved registers or if the currently loaded registers are
> valid. It could be skipped during
> taskA -> kernel thread -> taskA
>
> because the switch to kernel thread would not alter the CPU's FPU state.
>
> Since this field is always updated during context switch and never
> invalidated, setting it manually (in user context) makes no difference.
> A kernel thread with kernel_fpu_begin() block could set
> fpu_fpregs_owner_ctx to NULL but a kernel thread does not use
> user_fpu_begin().
> This is a leftover from the lazy-FPU time.
>
> Remove user_fpu_begin(), it does not change fpu_fpregs_owner_ctx's
> content.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h | 17 -----------------
> arch/x86/kernel/fpu/core.c | 4 +---
> arch/x86/kernel/fpu/signal.c | 1 -
> 3 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 21 deletions(-)

Reviewed-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>

Should we do this microoptimization in addition, to save us the
activation when the kernel thread here:

taskA -> kernel thread -> taskA

doesn't call kernel_fpu_begin() and thus fpu_fpregs_owner_ctx remains
the same?

It would be a bit more correct as it won't invoke the
trace_x86_fpu_regs_activated() TP in case the FPU context is the same.

---
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h
index bfe0bfc7d0d1..ee1ac46a7820 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h
@@ -510,7 +510,7 @@ switch_fpu_prepare(struct fpu *old_fpu, int cpu)
* Set up the userspace FPU context for the new task, if the task
* has used the FPU.
*/
-static inline void switch_fpu_finish(struct fpu *new_fpu, int cpu)
+static inline void switch_fpu_finish(struct fpu *prev_fpu, struct fpu *new_fpu, int cpu)
{
if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_FPU)) {
if (!fpregs_state_valid(new_fpu, cpu)) {
@@ -518,7 +518,8 @@ static inline void switch_fpu_finish(struct fpu *new_fpu, int cpu)
copy_kernel_to_fpregs(&new_fpu->state);
}

- fpregs_activate(new_fpu);
+ if (prev_fpu != new_fpu)
+ fpregs_activate(new_fpu);
}
}

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c
index 77d9eb43ccac..f8205df2df1d 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c
@@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ __switch_to(struct task_struct *prev_p, struct task_struct *next_p)

this_cpu_write(current_task, next_p);

- switch_fpu_finish(next_fpu, cpu);
+ switch_fpu_finish(prev_fpu, next_fpu, cpu);

/* Load the Intel cache allocation PQR MSR. */
resctrl_sched_in();
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
index ffea7c557963..5f153b963180 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
@@ -572,7 +572,7 @@ __switch_to(struct task_struct *prev_p, struct task_struct *next_p)
this_cpu_write(current_task, next_p);
this_cpu_write(cpu_current_top_of_stack, task_top_of_stack(next_p));

- switch_fpu_finish(next_fpu, cpu);
+ switch_fpu_finish(prev_fpu, next_fpu, cpu);

/* Reload sp0. */
update_task_stack(next_p);

--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.