Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To:     'Thomas Gleixner' <tglx@linutronix.de>
CC:     'Rahul Lakkireddy' <rahul.lakkireddy@chelsio.com>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "torvalds@linux-foundation.org" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        "ganeshgr@chelsio.com" <ganeshgr@chelsio.com>,
        "nirranjan@chelsio.com" <nirranjan@chelsio.com>,
        "indranil@chelsio.com" <indranil@chelsio.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 0/3] kernel: add support for 256-bit IO access
Thread-Topic: [RFC PATCH 0/3] kernel: add support for 256-bit IO access
Thread-Index: AQHTv43TjMVMzNQoikSg1VH837bpVaPXnqXggAAJp4CAAAH+gA==
Date:   Mon, 19 Mar 2018 15:19:01 +0000
Message-ID: <7f8d811e79284a78a763f4852984eb3f@AcuMS.aculab.com>
References: <cover.1521469118.git.rahul.lakkireddy@chelsio.com>
 <7f0ddb3678814c7bab180714437795e0@AcuMS.aculab.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1803191557400.2010@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1803191557400.2010@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Authenticated_ID: 
X-PolicySMART: 3396946, 3397078
X-Virus-Status: Scanned by VirusSMART (c)
X-Virus-Status: Scanned by VirusSMART (s)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

From: Thomas Gleixner
> Sent: 19 March 2018 15:05
> 
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2018, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Rahul Lakkireddy
> > In principle it ought to be possible to get access to one or two
> > (eg) AVX registers by saving them to stack and telling the fpu
> > save code where you've put them.
> 
> No. We have functions for this and we are not adding new ad hoc magic.

I was thinking that a real API might do this...
Useful also for code that needs AVX-like registers to do things like CRCs.

> > OTOH, for x86, if the code always runs in process context (eg from a
> > system call) then, since the ABI defines them all as caller-saved
> > the AVX(2) registers, it is only necessary to ensure that the current
> > FPU registers belong to the current process once.
> > The registers can be set to zero by an 'invalidate' instruction on
> > system call entry (hope this is done) and after use.
> 
> Why would a system call touch the FPU registers? The kernel normally does
> not use FPU instructions and the code which explicitely does has to take
> care of save/restore. It would be performance madness to fiddle with the
> FPU stuff unconditionally if nothing uses it.

If system call entry reset the AVX registers then any FP save/restore
would be faster because the AVX registers wouldn't need to be saved
(and the cpu won't save them).
I believe the instruction to reset the AVX registers is fast.
The AVX registers only ever need saving if the process enters the
kernel through an interrupt.

	David