[PATCH 4/4] x86, fpu: irq_fpu_usable: kill all checks except !in_kernel_fpu

[Oleg Nesterov]

ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS MORE THE QUESTION THAN THE PATCH.

interrupted_kernel_fpu_idle() does:

	if (use_eager_fpu())
		return true;

	return !__thread_has_fpu(current) &&
		(read_cr0() & X86_CR0_TS);

and it is absolutely not clear why these 2 cases differ so much.

To remind, the use_eager_fpu() case is buggy; __save_init_fpu() in
__kernel_fpu_begin() can race with math_state_restore() which does
__thread_fpu_begin() + restore_fpu_checking(). So we should fix this
race anyway and we can't require __thread_has_fpu() == F likes the
!use_eager_fpu() case does, in this case kernel_fpu_begin() will not
work if it interrupts the idle thread (this will reintroduce the
performance regression fixed by 5187b28f).

Probably math_state_restore() can use kernel_fpu_disable/end() which
sets/clears in_kernel_fpu, or it can disable irqs. Doesn't matter, we
should fix this bug anyway.

And if we fix this bug, why else !use_eager_fpu() case needs the much
more strict check? Why we can't handle the __thread_has_fpu(current)
case the same way?

The comment deleted by this change says:

	and TS must be set so that the clts/stts pair does nothing

and can explain the difference, but I can not understand this (again,
assuming that we fix the race(s) mentoined above).

Say, user_fpu_begin(). Yes, kernel_fpu_begin/end() can restore X86_CR0_TS.
But this should be fine? A context switch before restore_user_xstate()
can equally set it back? And device_not_available() should be fine even
in kernel context?

I'll appreciate any comment.
---
 arch/x86/kernel/i387.c |   44 +-------------------------------------------
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/i387.c b/arch/x86/kernel/i387.c
index 9fb2899..ef60f33 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/i387.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/i387.c
@@ -22,54 +22,12 @@
 static DEFINE_PER_CPU(bool, in_kernel_fpu);
 
 /*
- * Were we in an interrupt that interrupted kernel mode?
- *
- * On others, we can do a kernel_fpu_begin/end() pair *ONLY* if that
- * pair does nothing at all: the thread must not have fpu (so
- * that we don't try to save the FPU state), and TS must
- * be set (so that the clts/stts pair does nothing that is
- * visible in the interrupted kernel thread).
- *
- * Except for the eagerfpu case when we return 1.
- */
-static inline bool interrupted_kernel_fpu_idle(void)
-{
-	if (this_cpu_read(in_kernel_fpu))
-		return false;
-
-	if (use_eager_fpu())
-		return true;
-
-	return !__thread_has_fpu(current) &&
-		(read_cr0() & X86_CR0_TS);
-}
-
-/*
- * Were we in user mode (or vm86 mode) when we were
- * interrupted?
- *
- * Doing kernel_fpu_begin/end() is ok if we are running
- * in an interrupt context from user mode - we'll just
- * save the FPU state as required.
- */
-static inline bool interrupted_user_mode(void)
-{
-	struct pt_regs *regs = get_irq_regs();
-	return regs && user_mode_vm(regs);
-}
-
-/*
  * Can we use the FPU in kernel mode with the
  * whole "kernel_fpu_begin/end()" sequence?
- *
- * It's always ok in process context (ie "not interrupt")
- * but it is sometimes ok even from an irq.
  */
 bool irq_fpu_usable(void)
 {
-	return !in_interrupt() ||
-		interrupted_user_mode() ||
-		interrupted_kernel_fpu_idle();
+	return !this_cpu_read(in_kernel_fpu);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(irq_fpu_usable);
 
-- 
1.5.5.1


--
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/