On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 03:56:57PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 02:31:59PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote: > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 01:48:12PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > > On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 05:05:08PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > > > > This is true by construction however: TIF_FOREIGN_FPSTATE is never > > > > cleared except when returning to userspace or returning from a > > > > signal: thus, for a true kernel thread no FPSIMD context is ever > > > > loaded, TIF_FOREIGN_FPSTATE will remain set and no context will > > > > ever be saved. > > > > > > I don't understand this construction proof; from looking at the patch > > > below it is not obvious to me why fpsimd_thread_switch() can never have > > > !wrong_task && !wrong_cpu and therefore clear TIF_FOREIGN_FPSTATE for a > > > kernel thread? > > > > Looking at this again, I think it is poorly worded. This patch aims to > > make it true by construction, but it isn't prior to the patch. > > > > I'm tempted to delete the paragraph: the assertion of both untrue and > > not the best way to justify that this patch works. > > > > > > How about: > > > > -8<- > > > > The context switch logic already isolates user threads from each other. > > This, it is sufficient for isolating user threads from the kernel, > > since the goal either way is to ensure that code executing in userspace > > cannot see any FPSIMD state except its own. Thus, there is no special > > property of kernel threads that we care about except that it is > > pointless to save or load FPSIMD register state for them. > > > > At worst, the removal of all the kernel thread special cases by this > > patch would thus spuriously load and save state for kernel threads when > > unnecessary. > > > > But the context switch logic is already deliberately optimised to defer > > reloads of the regs until ret_to_user (or sigreturn as a special case), > > which kernel threads by definition never reach. > > > > ->8- > > The "at worst" paragraph makes it look like it could happen (at least > until you reach the last paragraph). Maybe you can just say that > wrong_task and wrong_cpu (with the fpsimd_cpu = NR_CPUS addition) are > always true for kernel threads. You should probably mention this in a > comment in the code as well. What if I just delete the second paragraph, and remove the "But" from the start of the third, and append: "As a result, the wrong_task and wrong_cpu tests in fpsimd_thread_switch() will always yield false for kernel threads." ...with a similar comment in the code? Cheers ---Dave _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
