Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1271291
| From | "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: irq_fpu_usable() is irreliable |
| Date | 2015-11-17 16:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qvPTH-6ll-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <qvP7j-64d-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qvP7j-64d-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
Hi Thomas,
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> The real question in your case is WHY interrupted_kernel_fpu_idle()
> returns false. We know for sure that in a syscall with BH disabled the
> first two checks are false.
Blurg, indeed. I've been trying to track that down in a different
thread with the netdev folks. After not getting anywhere, I sort of
felt, "dammit! can't this not be the issue, and can't I just get rid
of that in_interrupt() condition?" But, as you've explained above, no,
we can't get rid of that. So yes: the question is why
interrupted_kernel_fpu_idle() is false. Mysteriously it happens to be
the case in UDP mode but not TCP mode (the topic of the other thread),
and so I should resume trying to determine why this is so. I don't
entirely understand the function though:
static bool interrupted_kernel_fpu_idle(void)
{
if (kernel_fpu_disabled())
return false;
if (use_eager_fpu())
return true;
return !current->thread.fpu.fpregs_active && (read_cr0() & X86_CR0_TS);
}
From my tests, when irq_fpu_usable() is false, the expression
`!current->thread.fpu.fpregs_active && (read_cr0() & X86_CR0_TS);` is
false, for both of it. What, then, is leading to the call of
fpregs_activate()? I can't find anything along the syscall path that
would result in this. I admit I do not have a deep understanding of
how the FPU is implemented in Linux. Is it possible that this means
that userspace is using the FPU? Is this what user_fpu_begin() is all
about?
(If so, why is that state not stored on syscall entry? If the reason
is "because it would be expensive to do it everytime", then is there a
way to selectively do that only when it's necessary?)
Or, must this imply that the kernel is actually using it elsewhere,
and I need to just keep digging diligently?
Thanks,
Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: irq_fpu_usable() is irreliable Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2015-11-17 15:10 +0100
Re: irq_fpu_usable() is irreliable "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com> - 2015-11-17 16:00 +0100
Re: irq_fpu_usable() is irreliable "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com> - 2015-11-17 21:00 +0100
csiph-web