On 03/05, Dave Hansen wrote: > > On 03/05/2015 10:22 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 03/05, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > >> I _think_ that the difference is that eager_fpu_init()->xrstor_state() > >> was called before apply_alternatives(), so it used XRSTOR. > >> > >> Note also that (before this commit) restore_fpu_checking() was almost > >> never called right after init_fpu(). If use_eager_fpu() == T. > >> > >> After this commit the first xrstor_state() uses XRSTORS. And that is > >> how (I think) 'noxsaves' makes the difference. > >> > >> > >> So. I can be easily wrong, but so far I _think_ that this commit disclosed > >> another problem. And even if I am wrong and this commit is buggy, we need > >> to understand why ;) > >> > >> I'll try to think about debugging patch, I can't reproduce this problem > >> on my machine... > > > > Dave. could please run the test-case below? > > > > Without 'noxsaves', and without my commit. > > So you want it tested at 4b2e762e2e5 in tip/x86/fpu?
Yes, or even before, this doesn't really matter I think. 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/