On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> wrote:
> interrupted_kernel_fpu_idle() tries to detect if kernel_fpu_begin()
> is safe or not. In particulat it should obviously deny the nested
> kernel_fpu_begin() and this logic doesn't look clean.
>
> If use_eager_fpu() == T we rely on a) __thread_has_fpu() check in
> interrupted_kernel_fpu_idle(), and b) on the fact that _begin() does
> __thread_clear_has_fpu().
>
> Otherwise we demand that the interrupted task has no FPU if it is in
> kernel mode, this works becase __kernel_fpu_begin() does clts().
>
> Add the per-cpu "bool in_kernel_fpu" variable, and change this code
> to check/set/clear it. This allows to do some cleanups (see the next
> changes) and fixes.
>
> Note that the current code looks racy. Say, kernel_fpu_begin() right
> after math_state_restore()->__thread_fpu_begin() will overwrite the
> regs we are going to restore. This patch doesn't even try to fix this,
yes indeed, explicit calls to math_state_restore() in eager_fpu case
has this race. I guess this is present from the commit 5187b28f.
thanks,
suresh
> it just adds the comment, but "in_kernel_fpu" can also be used to
> implement kernel_fpu_disable() / kernel_fpu_enable().
>
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/i387.h | 2 +-
> arch/x86/kernel/i387.c | 10 ++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/i387.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/i387.h
> index ed8089d..5e275d3 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/i387.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/i387.h
> @@ -40,8 +40,8 @@ extern void __kernel_fpu_end(void);
>
> static inline void kernel_fpu_begin(void)
> {
> - WARN_ON_ONCE(!irq_fpu_usable());
> preempt_disable();
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(!irq_fpu_usable());
> __kernel_fpu_begin();
> }
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/i387.c b/arch/x86/kernel/i387.c
> index d5dd808..8fb8868 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/i387.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/i387.c
> @@ -19,6 +19,8 @@
> #include <asm/fpu-internal.h>
> #include <asm/user.h>
>
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(bool, in_kernel_fpu);
> +
> /*
> * Were we in an interrupt that interrupted kernel mode?
> *
> @@ -33,6 +35,9 @@
> */
> static inline bool interrupted_kernel_fpu_idle(void)
> {
> + if (this_cpu_read(in_kernel_fpu))
> + return false;
> +
> if (use_eager_fpu())
> return __thread_has_fpu(current);
>
> @@ -73,6 +78,9 @@ void __kernel_fpu_begin(void)
> {
> struct task_struct *me = current;
>
> + this_cpu_write(in_kernel_fpu, true);
> +
> + /* FIXME: race with math_state_restore()-like code */
> if (__thread_has_fpu(me)) {
> __thread_clear_has_fpu(me);
> __save_init_fpu(me);
> @@ -99,6 +107,8 @@ void __kernel_fpu_end(void)
> } else {
> stts();
> }
> +
> + this_cpu_write(in_kernel_fpu, false);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(__kernel_fpu_end);
>
> --
> 1.5.5.1
>
>
--
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/
