From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756813Ab1K2VbO (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:31:14 -0500 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:17362 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756377Ab1K2VbL (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:31:11 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,593,1315206000"; d="scan'208";a="90327981" From: Andi Kleen To: Hans Rosenfeld Cc: , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] rework of extended state handling, LWP support References: <1322570488-21798-1-git-send-email-hans.rosenfeld@amd.com> Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 13:31:09 -0800 In-Reply-To: <1322570488-21798-1-git-send-email-hans.rosenfeld@amd.com> (Hans Rosenfeld's message of "Tue, 29 Nov 2011 13:41:19 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hans Rosenfeld writes: > > The lazy allocation of the xstate area has been removed. The support for > extended states that cannot be saved/restored lazily, like AMD's LWP, > need this. Since optimized library functions using SSE etc. are widely > used today, most processes would have an xstate area anyway, making the > memory overhead negligible. Do you have any data on that? It sounds dubious for specialized workloads. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only