Re: x86 memcpy performance

[Andrew Lutomirski]

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 2:26 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 08/15/2011 09:58 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 12:12 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 08/15/2011 08:36 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (*)  kernel_fpu_begin is a bad name.  It's only safe to use integer
>>>> instructions inside a kernel_fpu_begin section because MXCSR (and the
>>>> 387 equivalent) could contain garbage.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Uh... no, it just means you have to initialize the settings.  It's a
>>> perfectly good name, it's called kernel_fpu_begin, not kernel_fp_begin.
>>
>> I prefer get_xstate / put_xstate, but this could rapidly devolve into
>> bikeshedding. :)
>>
>
> a) Quite.
>
> b) xstate is not architecture-neutral.

Are there any architecture-neutral users of this thing?  If I were
writing generic code, I would expect:

kernel_fpu_begin();
foo *= 1.5;
kernel_fpu_end();

to work, but I would not expect:

kernel_fpu_begin();
use_xmm_registers();
kernel_fpu_end();

to make any sense.

Since the former does not actually work, I would hope that there is no
non-x86-specific user.

--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/