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:   Thu, 14 Feb 2019 10:34:52 +0000
From:   Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] arm64/fpsimd: Don't disable softirq when touching
 FPSIMD/SVE state
Message-ID: <20190214103449.GN3567@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <20190208165513.8435-1-julien.grall@arm.com>
 <20190213143029.ad2kzg7vtuo3zpjk@linutronix.de>
 <20190213153630.GK3567@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
 <CAKv+Gu__0uy6Y-EJGSygSYH4RqpLDWMMNFE3yauF_x7-UNcgFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190213165227.7ekekkxazhbaqxoe@linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190213165227.7ekekkxazhbaqxoe@linutronix.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 05:52:27PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2019-02-13 16:40:00 [+0100], Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > > This is equal what x86 is currently doing. The naming is slightly
> > > > different, there is irq_fpu_usable().
> > >
> > > Yes, I think it's basically the same idea.
> > >
> > > It's been evolving a bit on both sides, but is quite similar now.
> > >
> > 
> > may_use_simd() only exists because we have a generic crypto SIMD
> > helper, and so we needed something arch agnostic to wrap around
> > irq_fpu_usable()
> 
> My question was more if this is helpful and we want to keep or if
> it would be better to remove it and always disable BH as part of SIMD
> operations.

Wouldn't this arbitrarily increase softirq latency?  Unconditionally
forbidding SIMD in softirq might make more sense.  It depends on how
important the use cases are...

Cheers
---Dave