Re: [PATCH 1/8] x86, fpu: unlazy_fpu: don't reset thread.fpu_counter

2015-02-16 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 07:14:17PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > Should I resend? No need, I've changed it before applying. :-) Thanks. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply. -- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in

Re: [PATCH 1/8] x86, fpu: unlazy_fpu: don't reset thread.fpu_counter

2015-02-16 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On 02/16, Rik van Riel wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 02/16/2015 12:04 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > > ... and so by looking at the unlazy_fpu() call sites, I think this > > makes sense. > > > > So how's that for a commit message instead: > > > > --- x86, fpu,

Re: [PATCH 1/8] x86, fpu: unlazy_fpu: don't reset thread.fpu_counter

2015-02-16 Thread Rik van Riel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/16/2015 12:04 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > ... and so by looking at the unlazy_fpu() call sites, I think this > makes sense. > > So how's that for a commit message instead: > > --- x86, fpu, unlazy_fpu: Don't reset thread.fpu_counter > > The

Re: [PATCH 1/8] x86, fpu: unlazy_fpu: don't reset thread.fpu_counter

2015-02-16 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 03:01:58PM -0500, r...@redhat.com wrote: > From: Oleg Nesterov > > It is not clear why the "else" branch clears ->fpu_counter, this makes > no sense. See below for why. > If use_eager_fpu() then this has no effect. Otherwise, if we actually > wanted to prevent fpu

Re: [PATCH 1/8] x86, fpu: unlazy_fpu: don't reset thread.fpu_counter

2015-02-16 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 03:01:58PM -0500, r...@redhat.com wrote: From: Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com It is not clear why the else branch clears -fpu_counter, this makes no sense. See below for why. If use_eager_fpu() then this has no effect. Otherwise, if we actually wanted to prevent fpu

Re: [PATCH 1/8] x86, fpu: unlazy_fpu: don't reset thread.fpu_counter

2015-02-16 Thread Rik van Riel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/16/2015 12:04 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: ... and so by looking at the unlazy_fpu() call sites, I think this makes sense. So how's that for a commit message instead: --- x86, fpu, unlazy_fpu: Don't reset thread.fpu_counter The else

Re: [PATCH 1/8] x86, fpu: unlazy_fpu: don't reset thread.fpu_counter

2015-02-16 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 07:14:17PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: Should I resend? No need, I've changed it before applying. :-) Thanks. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply. -- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the

Re: [PATCH 1/8] x86, fpu: unlazy_fpu: don't reset thread.fpu_counter

2015-02-16 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On 02/16, Rik van Riel wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/16/2015 12:04 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: ... and so by looking at the unlazy_fpu() call sites, I think this makes sense. So how's that for a commit message instead: --- x86, fpu, unlazy_fpu: Don't

[PATCH 1/8] x86, fpu: unlazy_fpu: don't reset thread.fpu_counter

2015-02-06 Thread riel
From: Oleg Nesterov It is not clear why the "else" branch clears ->fpu_counter, this makes no sense. If use_eager_fpu() then this has no effect. Otherwise, if we actually wanted to prevent fpu preload after the context switch we would need to reset it unconditionally, even if

[PATCH 1/8] x86, fpu: unlazy_fpu: don't reset thread.fpu_counter

2015-02-06 Thread riel
From: Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com It is not clear why the else branch clears -fpu_counter, this makes no sense. If use_eager_fpu() then this has no effect. Otherwise, if we actually wanted to prevent fpu preload after the context switch we would need to reset it unconditionally, even if