From: tip-bot for Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, mingo@redhat.com,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
hpa@linux.intel.com
Subject: [tip:x86/fpu] i387: Uninline the generic FP helpers that we expose to kernel modules
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:49:33 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <tip-8546c008924d5fd1724fa698eaa92b414bafd50d@git.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1202211339590.5354@i5.linux-foundation.org>
Commit-ID: 8546c008924d5fd1724fa698eaa92b414bafd50d
Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/8546c008924d5fd1724fa698eaa92b414bafd50d
Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
AuthorDate: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:25:45 -0800
Committer: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
CommitDate: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:12:46 -0800
i387: Uninline the generic FP helpers that we expose to kernel modules
Instead of exporting the very low-level internals of the FPU state
save/restore code (ie things like 'fpu_owner_task'), we should export
the higher-level interfaces.
Inlining these things is pointless anyway: sure, sometimes the end
result is small, but while 'stts()' can result in just three x86
instructions, those are not cheap instructions (writing %cr0 is a
serializing instruction and a very slow one at that).
So the overhead of a function call is not noticeable, and we really
don't want random modules mucking about with our internal state save
logic anyway.
So this unexports 'fpu_owner_task', and instead uninlines and exports
the actual functions that modules can use: fpu_kernel_begin/end() and
unlazy_fpu().
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.LFD.2.02.1202211339590.5354@i5.linux-foundation.org
Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
---
arch/x86/include/asm/i387.h | 78 ++--------------------------------------
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c | 2 -
arch/x86/kernel/i387.c | 80 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 76 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/i387.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/i387.h
index 2479049..0c1031d 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/i387.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/i387.h
@@ -419,70 +419,9 @@ static inline void __clear_fpu(struct task_struct *tsk)
}
}
-/*
- * Were we in an interrupt that interrupted kernel mode?
- *
- * We can do a kernel_fpu_begin/end() pair *ONLY* if that
- * pair does nothing at all: the thread must not have fpu (so
- * that we don't try to save the FPU state), and TS must
- * be set (so that the clts/stts pair does nothing that is
- * visible in the interrupted kernel thread).
- */
-static inline bool interrupted_kernel_fpu_idle(void)
-{
- return !__thread_has_fpu(current) &&
- (read_cr0() & X86_CR0_TS);
-}
-
-/*
- * Were we in user mode (or vm86 mode) when we were
- * interrupted?
- *
- * Doing kernel_fpu_begin/end() is ok if we are running
- * in an interrupt context from user mode - we'll just
- * save the FPU state as required.
- */
-static inline bool interrupted_user_mode(void)
-{
- struct pt_regs *regs = get_irq_regs();
- return regs && user_mode_vm(regs);
-}
-
-/*
- * Can we use the FPU in kernel mode with the
- * whole "kernel_fpu_begin/end()" sequence?
- *
- * It's always ok in process context (ie "not interrupt")
- * but it is sometimes ok even from an irq.
- */
-static inline bool irq_fpu_usable(void)
-{
- return !in_interrupt() ||
- interrupted_user_mode() ||
- interrupted_kernel_fpu_idle();
-}
-
-static inline void kernel_fpu_begin(void)
-{
- struct task_struct *me = current;
-
- WARN_ON_ONCE(!irq_fpu_usable());
- preempt_disable();
- if (__thread_has_fpu(me)) {
- __save_init_fpu(me);
- __thread_clear_has_fpu(me);
- /* We do 'stts()' in kernel_fpu_end() */
- } else {
- percpu_write(fpu_owner_task, NULL);
- clts();
- }
-}
-
-static inline void kernel_fpu_end(void)
-{
- stts();
- preempt_enable();
-}
+extern bool irq_fpu_usable(void);
+extern void kernel_fpu_begin(void);
+extern void kernel_fpu_end(void);
/*
* Some instructions like VIA's padlock instructions generate a spurious
@@ -566,16 +505,7 @@ static inline void save_init_fpu(struct task_struct *tsk)
preempt_enable();
}
-static inline void unlazy_fpu(struct task_struct *tsk)
-{
- preempt_disable();
- if (__thread_has_fpu(tsk)) {
- __save_init_fpu(tsk);
- __thread_fpu_end(tsk);
- } else
- tsk->fpu_counter = 0;
- preempt_enable();
-}
+extern void unlazy_fpu(struct task_struct *tsk);
static inline void clear_fpu(struct task_struct *tsk)
{
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
index c0f7d68..cb71b01 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
@@ -1045,7 +1045,6 @@ DEFINE_PER_CPU(char *, irq_stack_ptr) =
DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, irq_count) = -1;
DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct task_struct *, fpu_owner_task);
-EXPORT_PER_CPU_SYMBOL(fpu_owner_task);
/*
* Special IST stacks which the CPU switches to when it calls
@@ -1115,7 +1114,6 @@ void debug_stack_reset(void)
DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct task_struct *, current_task) = &init_task;
EXPORT_PER_CPU_SYMBOL(current_task);
DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct task_struct *, fpu_owner_task);
-EXPORT_PER_CPU_SYMBOL(fpu_owner_task);
#ifdef CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR
DEFINE_PER_CPU_ALIGNED(struct stack_canary, stack_canary);
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/i387.c b/arch/x86/kernel/i387.c
index 739d859..17b7549 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/i387.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/i387.c
@@ -32,6 +32,86 @@
# define user32_fxsr_struct user_fxsr_struct
#endif
+/*
+ * Were we in an interrupt that interrupted kernel mode?
+ *
+ * We can do a kernel_fpu_begin/end() pair *ONLY* if that
+ * pair does nothing at all: the thread must not have fpu (so
+ * that we don't try to save the FPU state), and TS must
+ * be set (so that the clts/stts pair does nothing that is
+ * visible in the interrupted kernel thread).
+ */
+static inline bool interrupted_kernel_fpu_idle(void)
+{
+ return !__thread_has_fpu(current) &&
+ (read_cr0() & X86_CR0_TS);
+}
+
+/*
+ * Were we in user mode (or vm86 mode) when we were
+ * interrupted?
+ *
+ * Doing kernel_fpu_begin/end() is ok if we are running
+ * in an interrupt context from user mode - we'll just
+ * save the FPU state as required.
+ */
+static inline bool interrupted_user_mode(void)
+{
+ struct pt_regs *regs = get_irq_regs();
+ return regs && user_mode_vm(regs);
+}
+
+/*
+ * Can we use the FPU in kernel mode with the
+ * whole "kernel_fpu_begin/end()" sequence?
+ *
+ * It's always ok in process context (ie "not interrupt")
+ * but it is sometimes ok even from an irq.
+ */
+bool irq_fpu_usable(void)
+{
+ return !in_interrupt() ||
+ interrupted_user_mode() ||
+ interrupted_kernel_fpu_idle();
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(irq_fpu_usable);
+
+void kernel_fpu_begin(void)
+{
+ struct task_struct *me = current;
+
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(!irq_fpu_usable());
+ preempt_disable();
+ if (__thread_has_fpu(me)) {
+ __save_init_fpu(me);
+ __thread_clear_has_fpu(me);
+ /* We do 'stts()' in kernel_fpu_end() */
+ } else {
+ percpu_write(fpu_owner_task, NULL);
+ clts();
+ }
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(kernel_fpu_begin);
+
+void kernel_fpu_end(void)
+{
+ stts();
+ preempt_enable();
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(kernel_fpu_end);
+
+void unlazy_fpu(struct task_struct *tsk)
+{
+ preempt_disable();
+ if (__thread_has_fpu(tsk)) {
+ __save_init_fpu(tsk);
+ __thread_fpu_end(tsk);
+ } else
+ tsk->fpu_counter = 0;
+ preempt_enable();
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(unlazy_fpu);
+
#ifdef CONFIG_MATH_EMULATION
# define HAVE_HWFP (boot_cpu_data.hard_math)
#else
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-21 23:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-19 22:23 [PATCH 0/2] More i387 state save/restore work Linus Torvalds
2012-02-19 22:26 ` [PATCH 1/2] i387: use 'restore_fpu_checking()' directly in task switching code Linus Torvalds
2012-02-19 22:37 ` [PATCH 2/2] i387: support lazy restore of FPU state Linus Torvalds
2012-02-19 22:44 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-02-19 23:18 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-02-19 23:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-20 7:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-02-20 0:53 ` [PATCH 0/2] More i387 state save/restore work Michael Neuling
2012-02-20 1:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-20 1:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-20 1:11 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-03-01 11:30 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2012-02-20 2:09 ` Indan Zupancic
2012-02-20 19:46 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] " Linus Torvalds
2012-02-20 19:47 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] i387: fix up some fpu_counter confusion Linus Torvalds
2012-02-20 19:48 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] i387: use 'restore_fpu_checking()' directly in task switching code Linus Torvalds
2012-02-20 19:48 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] i387: support lazy restore of FPU state Linus Torvalds
2012-02-21 1:50 ` Josh Boyer
2012-02-21 2:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-21 2:14 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-02-21 5:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-21 5:35 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-02-21 14:19 ` Josh Boyer
2012-02-21 17:59 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-02-21 18:06 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-02-21 18:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-21 21:14 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-02-21 21:39 ` [PATCH 0/2] i387: FP state interface cleanups Linus Torvalds
2012-02-21 21:40 ` [PATCH 1/2] i387: uninline the generic FP helpers that we expose to kernel modules Linus Torvalds
2012-02-21 21:41 ` [PATCH 2/2] i387: split up <asm/i387.h> into exported and internal interfaces Linus Torvalds
2012-02-21 23:50 ` [tip:x86/fpu] i387: Split " tip-bot for Linus Torvalds
2012-02-28 11:21 ` [PATCH 2/2] i387: split " Avi Kivity
2012-02-28 16:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-28 17:21 ` Avi Kivity
2012-02-28 17:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-28 18:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-28 18:29 ` Avi Kivity
2012-02-28 18:09 ` Avi Kivity
2012-02-28 18:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-28 19:06 ` Avi Kivity
2012-02-28 19:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-28 19:45 ` Avi Kivity
2012-02-21 23:49 ` tip-bot for Linus Torvalds [this message]
2012-02-21 2:18 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] i387: support lazy restore of FPU state Linus Torvalds
2012-02-21 2:32 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-02-21 2:11 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-02-21 21:54 ` Suresh Siddha
2012-02-21 21:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-21 22:19 ` Suresh Siddha
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=tip-8546c008924d5fd1724fa698eaa92b414bafd50d@git.kernel.org \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hpa@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).