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;
Date:   Wed, 11 Jul 2018 18:28:51 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, riel@surriel.com,
        dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Lazy FPU restoration / moving kernel_fpu_end() to context switch
Message-ID: <20180711162850.52jmzsuwegpk7rag@breakpoint.cc>
References: <CAHmME9pBqGhCjdwx64GxYTKWiMkDNY3v2gnVL_Xm2q=3guOAsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALCETrU+2mBPDfkBz1i_GT1EOJau+mzj4yOK8N0UnT2pGjiUWQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHmME9qhmSVNBq_GnkYrGU-PPEX9Fk0yiGktsCeEXo+LTB9KPg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHmME9qhmSVNBq_GnkYrGU-PPEX9Fk0yiGktsCeEXo+LTB9KPg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180622
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2018-06-15 22:33:47 [+0200], Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> 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.

I was thinking about this myself. Did anyone try to hack something in
the meantime? I might want to look into this, too :)

Sebastian