* Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > So I do think we could do more in this area to improve driver performance,
> > if the
> > code is correct and if there's actual benchmarks that are showing real
> > benefits.
>
> If it's about hotpath performance I'm all for it, but the use case here is
> a debug facility...
>
> And if we go down that road then we want a AVX based memcpy()
> implementation which is runtime conditional on the feature bit(s) and
> length dependent. Just slapping a readqq() at it and use it in a loop does
> not make any sense.
Yeah, so generic memcpy() replacement is only feasible I think if the most
optimistic implementation is actually correct:
- if no preempt disable()/enable() is required
- if direct access to the AVX[2] registers does not disturb legacy FPU state
in
any fashion
- if direct access to the AVX[2] registers cannot raise weird exceptions or
have
weird behavior if the FPU control word is modified to non-standard values by
untrusted user-space
If we have to touch the FPU tag or control words then it's probably only good
for
a specialized API.
Thanks,
Ingo
