Hi Thomas, On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:29 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, 1 Sep 2018, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 2:32 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I tend to think the right approach is to merge Jason's code and then > > > make it better later. Even with a totally perfect lazy FPU restore > > > implementation on x86, we'll probably still need some way of dealing > > > with SIMD contexts. I think we're highly unlikely to ever a allow > > > SIMD usage in all NMI contexts, for example, and there will always be > > > cases where we specifically don't want to use all available SIMD > > > capabilities even if we can. For example, generating random numbers > > > does crypto, but we probably don't want to do *SIMD* crypto, since > > > that will force a save and restore and will probably fire up the > > > AVX512 unit, and that's not worth it unless we're already using it for > > > some other reason. > > > > > > Also, as Rik has discovered, lazy FPU restore is conceptually > > > straightforward but isn't entirely trivial :) > > > > Sounds good. I'll move ahead on this basis. > > Fine with me. Do you want to pull this single patch [01/17] into your tree now, and then when I submit v3 of WireGuard and such, I can just drop this patch from it, and then the rest will enter like usual networking stuff through Dave's tree? Jason
