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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHmME9pBqGhCjdwx64GxYTKWiMkDNY3v2gnVL_Xm2q=3guOAsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALCETrU+2mBPDfkBz1i_GT1EOJau+mzj4yOK8N0UnT2pGjiUWQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrU+2mBPDfkBz1i_GT1EOJau+mzj4yOK8N0UnT2pGjiUWQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Jun 2018 22:33:47 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHmME9qhmSVNBq_GnkYrGU-PPEX9Fk0yiGktsCeEXo+LTB9KPg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lazy FPU restoration / moving kernel_fpu_end() to context switch
To:     Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc:     riel@surriel.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 8:32 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
> quite in the form you imagined.  The idea that we've tossed around is
> to restore FPU state on return to user mode.  Roughly, we'd introduce
> a new thread flag TIF_FPU_UNLOADED (name TBD).
> prepare_exit_to_usermode() would notice this flag, copy the fpstate to
> fpregs, and clear the flag.  (Or maybe exit_to_usermode_loop() -- No
> one has quite thought it through, but I think it should be outside the
> loop.)  We'd update all the FPU accessors to understand the flag.

Yes! This is exactly what I was thinking. Then those calls to begin()
and end() could be placed as close to the actual FPU usage as
possible.