On 01/11, [email protected] wrote:
>
> @@ -382,6 +382,7 @@ static inline void drop_init_fpu(struct task_struct *tsk)
>               else
>                       fxrstor_checking(&init_xstate_buf->i387);
>       }
> +     clear_thread_flag(TIF_LOAD_FPU);

OK, in this case tsk should be current. Still I think clear_tsk_thread_flag()
will look more consistent.

> @@ -435,24 +436,32 @@ static inline void switch_fpu_prepare(struct 
> task_struct *old, struct task_struc
>                               prefetch(new->thread.fpu.state);

I am wondering if these prefetch()es in switch_fpu_prepare() make
sense after this patch.

> +             } else
> +                     /*
> +                      * The new task does not want an FPU state restore,
> +                      * and may not even have an FPU state. However, the
> +                      * old task may have left TIF_LOAD_FPU set.
> +                      * Clear it to avoid trouble.
> +                      *
> +                      * CR0.TS is still set from a previous FPU switch
> +                      */
> +                     clear_thread_flag(TIF_LOAD_FPU);

I got lost ;) Simply can't understand what this change tries to do.

And it looks "obviously wrong"... OK, suppose that a TIF_LOAD_FPU task
schedules before it returns to user mode (and calls switch_fpu_finish).
Why should we clear its flag if the new task doesn't want FPU ?

"CR0.TS is still set" is not true if use_eager_fpu()... OTOH, .TS can
be also set even if preload == T above, when we set TIF_LOAD_FPU.

> -static inline void switch_fpu_finish(struct task_struct *new)
> +static inline void switch_fpu_finish(void)
>  {
> -     if (test_and_clear_thread_flag(TIF_LOAD_FPU)) {
> -             __thread_fpu_begin(new);
> -             if (unlikely(restore_fpu_checking(new)))
> -                     drop_init_fpu(new);
> -     }
> +     struct task_struct *tsk = current;
> +
> +     __thread_fpu_begin(tsk);
> +
> +     if (unlikely(restore_fpu_checking(tsk)))
> +             drop_init_fpu(tsk);
>  }

Again, I am totally confused. After this patch the usage of set_thread_flag()
in switch_fpu_prepare() becomes wrong (see my reply to 2/11), but it is quite
possible I misunderstood these patches.

Oleg.

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

Reply via email to