Re: [PATCH] Make math_state_restore() save and restore the interrupt flag

[H. Peter Anvin]

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@xxxxxxxxxxx>, 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
> 
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/