lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Oct]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 11/13] x86/uintr: Introduce uintr_wait() syscall
From
Date
On 10/1/2021 2:29 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> So we'd end up with two XSAVES on context switch. We can simply do:
> XSAVES();
> fpu.state.xtsate.uintr.uinv = 0;


I am a bit confused. Do we need to set UINV to 0 explicitly?

If XSAVES gets called twice during context switch then the UINV in the
XSTATE buffer automatically gets set to 0. Since XSAVES saves the
current UINV value in the MISC_MSR which was already set to 0 by the
previous XSAVES.

Though, this probably happens due to pure luck than intentional design :)

> which allows to do as many XRSTORS in a row as we want. Only the final
> one on the way to user space will have to restore the real vector if the
> register state is not valid:
>
> if (fpu_state_valid()) {
> if (needs_uinv(current)
> wrmsrl(UINV, vector);
> } else {
> if (needs_uinv(current)
> fpu.state.xtsate.uintr.uinv = vector;
> XRSTORS();
> }

I might have missed some subtle difference. Has this logic changed from
what you previously suggested for arch_exit_to_user_mode_prepare()?

       if (xrstors_pending)) {
            // Update the saved xstate for xrstors
            // Unconditionally update the UINV since it could have been
overwritten by calling XSAVES twice.
               current->xstate.uintr.uinv = UINTR_NOTIFICATION_VECTOR;
                current->xstate.uintr.uirr |= pir;
        } else {
                // Manually restore UIRR and UINV
                rdmsrl(IA32_UINTR_RR, uirr);
                wrmsrl(IA32_UINTR_RR, uirr | pir);

            misc.val64 = 0;
                misc.uittsz = current->uintr->uittsz;
                misc.uinv = UINTR_NOTIFICATION_VECTOR;
                wrmsrl(IA32_UINTR_MISC, misc.val64);
        }

> Hmm?


The one case I can see this failing is if there was another XRSTORS
after the "final" restore in arch_exit_to_user_mode_prepare()? I think
that is not possible but I am not an expert on this. Did I misunderstand
something?

Thanks,
Sohil

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-10-02 01:02    [W:0.236 / U:0.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site