On 03/05/2015 10:22 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 03/05, Oleg Nesterov wrote: >> I _think_ that the difference is that eager_fpu_init()->xrstor_state() >> was called before apply_alternatives(), so it used XRSTOR. >> >> Note also that (before this commit) restore_fpu_checking() was almost >> never called right after init_fpu(). If use_eager_fpu() == T. >> >> After this commit the first xrstor_state() uses XRSTORS. And that is >> how (I think) 'noxsaves' makes the difference. >> >> >> So. I can be easily wrong, but so far I _think_ that this commit disclosed >> another problem. And even if I am wrong and this commit is buggy, we need >> to understand why ;) >> >> I'll try to think about debugging patch, I can't reproduce this problem >> on my machine... > > Dave. could please run the test-case below? > > Without 'noxsaves', and without my commit.
So you want it tested at 4b2e762e2e5 in tip/x86/fpu? -- 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/
