Re: Kernel oops with 2.6.26, padlock and ipsec: probably problem with fpu state changes

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...>
Cc: Wolfgang Walter <wolfgang.walter@...>, Siddha, Suresh B <suresh.b.siddha@...>, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>, netdev@vger.kernel.org <netdev@...>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org <linux-kernel@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk <viro@...>, vegard.nossum@gmail.com <vegard.nossum@...>
Date: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 2:28 pm

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 05:02:13AM -0700, Herbert Xu wrote:

Thanks indeed.


Ok. In the real world usage, where we use these instructions both from
process and softirq context, we will probably not see much penality,
as the process context's first access will always endup doing full fp restore
(and also we kick in the context switch FP optimization, which will
proactively restore fp state if we touch FPU in 5 consecutive task slices).


As there are no further objections, Herbert/Ingo not sure who among you
will push this patch to Linus tree and  2.6.26 -stable tree aswell.

thanks,
suresh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: Kernel oops with 2.6.26, padlock and ipsec: probably pro..., Suresh Siddha, (Tue Aug 12, 2:28 pm)