Hey Thomas, On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 6:10 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm not too fond of this simply because it requires that relax() step in > all code pathes. I'd rather make that completely transparent by just > marking the task as FPU using and let the context switch code deal with it > in case that it gets preempted. I'll let one of my engineers look into > that next week. Do you mean to say you intend to make kernel_fpu_end() and kernel_neon_end() only actually do something upon context switch, but not when it's actually called? So that multiple calls to kernel_fpu_begin() and kernel_neon_begin() can be made without penalty? If so, that'd be great, and I'd certainly prefer this to the simd_context_t passing. I consider the simd_get/put/relax API a stopgap measure until something like that is implemented. Jason
