lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Mar]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Make math_state_restore() save and restore the interrupt flag
Hi Suresh,

Any thoughts on this?

-hpa

On 02/27/2014 03:44 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> So, picking up this thread which got dropped on the floor...
>
> On 02/01/2014 11:19 PM, Suresh Siddha wrote:
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/i387.c b/arch/x86/kernel/i387.c
>> index e8368c6..4e5f770 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/i387.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/i387.c
>> @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
>> * General FPU state handling cleanups
>> * Gareth Hughes <gareth@valinux.com>, May 2000
>> */
>> +#include <linux/bootmem.h>
>> #include <linux/module.h>
>> #include <linux/regset.h>
>> #include <linux/sched.h>
>> @@ -186,6 +187,10 @@ void fpu_init(void)
>> if (xstate_size == 0)
>> init_thread_xstate();
>>
>> + if (!current->thread.fpu.state)
>> + current->thread.fpu.state =
>> + alloc_bootmem_align(xstate_size, __alignof__(struct xsave_struct));
>> +
>> mxcsr_feature_mask_init();
>> xsave_init();
>> eager_fpu_init();
>
> So this bit is giving me a bit of a headache, specifically
> alloc_bootmem_align() is an __init function and fpu_init() obviously isn't.
>
> I am doubly confused because init_thread_xstate() only sets the xstate
> without any XSAVE features, so the memory allocation we get there will
> be insufficient later -- in fact, only a few lines further down the
> function, when xsave_init() is called.
>
> I'm wondering if we could put this somewhere inside
> xstate_enable_boot_cpu() instead, maybe?
>
> I'm assuming the reason you didn't want to in eager_fpu_init_bp()
> anymore is because you want the allocation to happen regardless of if
> eagerfpu is enabled, correct?
>
> -hpa
>
>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-03-08 01:01    [W:1.980 / U:0.060 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site