On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 12:37:24PM -0700, Suresh Siddha wrote:
quoted text
> On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 11:52:24AM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> > Backing out lazy allocation is not just enough here. Let me think a little
> > more on this.
> 
> Can we have something like irq_ts_save() and irq_ts_restore(), which will
> do something like:
> 
> int irq_ts_save()
> {
> 	if (!in_interrupt())
> 		return 0;
> 
> 	if (read_cr0() & X86_CR0_TS) {
> 		clts();
> 		return 1;
> 	}
> 	return 0;
> }
> 
> void irq_ts_restore(int TS_state)
> {
> 	if (!in_interrupt())
> 		return 0;

This check isn't necessary.

quoted text
> 
> 	if (TS_state)
> 		stts();
> }

But yes this scheme looks good to me.

quoted text
> kernel_fpu_begin:
> 	...
> 
> 	local_irq_disable();
> 
>         if (me->status & TS_USEDFPU)
>                 __save_init_fpu(me->task);
>         else
>                 clts(); 
> 
> 	local_irq_enable();
> 	...

Couldn't we just move clts before the USEDFPU check? That huld
close the window.

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
unsubscribe notice
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/