[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] i387: support lazy restore of FPU state
On 02/19/2012 02:44 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 02/19/2012 02:37 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> - on *every* task switch from task A, we write A->thread.fpu.last_cpu,
>> whether we owned the FPU or not. And we only write a real CPU number in
>> the case where we owned it, and the FPU save left the state untouched
>> in the FPU.
>> - so when we switch into task A next time, comparing the current CPU
>> number with that 'last_cpu' field inarguably says "when I last switched
>> out, I really saved it on this CPU"
>> That, together with verifying that the per-cpu "fpu_owner_task" matches
>> "task A", guarantees that the state is really valid. Because we will
>> clear (or set to another task) fpu_owner_task if it ever gets
>> switched to anything else.
>> But somebody should really validate this. Think through all the
>> kernel_fpu_begin() etc cases. I think it looks pretty obvious, and it
>> really does seem to work and improve task switching, but...
> I think your logic is correct but suboptimal.
> What would make more sense to me is that we write last_cpu when we
> *load* the state. After all, if you didn't load the state you couldn't
> have modified it. In kernel_fpu_begin, *if* we end up flushing the
> state, we should set last_cpu to -1 indicating that *no* CPU currently
> owns the state -- after all, even on this CPU we would now have to
> reload the state from memory.

This is obviously wrong for kernel_fpu_begin... what we should do there
is to just set fpu_owner_task to NULL as we no longer have any task's
content in the fpu; no need to much with last_cpu though.


 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-20 00:21    [W:0.086 / U:0.460 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site