Let me abuse this thread to ask more questions.
Peter, could you help?
On 01/23, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> Not only is this broken with my new code, but it looks like it may
> be broken with the current code, too...
As I already mentioned, at least math_error()->save_init_fpu() looks
buggy. And unlazy_fpu() doesn't look right too.
Note that save_init_fpu() is calles after conditional_sti(), so unless
I missed something the task can be preempted and we can actually hit
WARN_ON_ONCE(!__thread_has_fpu()) if !use_eager_fpu() && .fpu_counter == 0.
Worse, the unconditional __save_init_fpu() is obviously wrong in this case.
I already have a patch which (like the patch from Rik) turns it into
static inline void save_init_fpu(struct task_struct *tsk)
{
preempt_disable();
if (__thread_has_fpu(tsk)) {
if (use_eager_fpu()) {
__save_fpu(tsk);
} else {
__save_init_fpu(tsk);
__thread_fpu_end(tsk);
}
}
preempt_enable();
}
and I think this fix needs the separate patch/changelog.
Now the questions:
- This doesn't hurt, but does it really need __thread_fpu_end?
Perhaps this is because we do not check the error code returned
by __save_init_fpu? although I am not sure I understand the comment
above fpu_save_init correctly...
- What about do_bounds() ? Should not it use save_init_fpu() rather
than fpu_save_init() ?
- Why unlazy_fpu() always does __save_init_fpu() even if use_eager_fpu?
and note that in this case __thread_fpu_end() is wrong if use_eager_fpu,
but fortunately the only possible caller of unlazy_fpu() is coredump.
fpu_copy() checks use_eager_fpu().
- Is unlazy_fpu()->__save_init_fpu() safe wrt __kernel_fpu_begin() from
irq?
I mean, is it safe if __save_init_fpu() path is interrupted by another
__save_init_fpu() + restore_fpu_checking() from __kernel_fpu_begin/end?
Thanks,
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
