On 01/29/2015 01:33 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 01/29, Dave Hansen wrote: >> >> On 01/29/2015 01:07 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: >>> 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... >>> Lets (try to) fix unlazy_fpu/save_init_fpu at least. >>> >>> Dave, fpu_save_init() in do_bounds() and task_get_bounds_dir() looks >>> wrong too, shouldn't it use unlazy_fpu() ? See the changelog in 3/3. >> >> IIRC, the 'cpu_has_xsaveopt' on the CPUs that support will MPX will >> enable eagerfpu. > > unless eagerfpu=off? but this doesn't matter.
Yeah, that's true. That would also explain why I haven't run in to this at all in testing. Ugh, fpu_save_init() says it isn't preempt safe anyway, so we shouldn't be using it. I'll send a fix. -- 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/
