Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210523193259.26200-1-chang.seok.bae@intel.com>
 <20210523193259.26200-29-chang.seok.bae@intel.com> <1980c78b-d51b-c186-9179-f3c72692ad8a@kernel.org>
 <ff72d7cd-e36d-06d8-d741-645a0504bf65@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <ff72d7cd-e36d-06d8-d741-645a0504bf65@intel.com>
From:   Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 24 May 2021 13:32:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJvTdKmQjTmOCwUBk+3dhYzOdsZBadqVdqFUPKRMkfcTccJHuA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 28/28] x86/fpu/amx: Clear the AMX state when appropriate
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        "Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@intel.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        "Brown, Len" <len.brown@intel.com>,
        "Liu, Jing2" <jing2.liu@intel.com>,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 10:10 AM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> wrote:

> On 5/23/21 8:13 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> > Can we do this just when going idle?
>
> Chang, you might also want to talk with folks that do scheduler
> performance work (I've cc'd Tim).  I know we're always fighting to trim
> down the idle and wakeup paths.  There might be no other alternative,
> but unconditionally forcing an AMX XRSTOR on return from idle might be
> considered nasty.

I'm not excited about burdening the generic idle path with a CPU
feature specific check
that would need to be checked on every idle entry.

thanks,
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center