Re: Candidate Linux ABI for Intel AMX and hypothetical new related features

[Dave Hansen]

On 3/30/21 10:56 AM, Len Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 1:06 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Mar 30, 2021, at 10:01 AM, Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Is it required (by the "ABI") that a user program has everything
>>> on the stack for user-space XSAVE/XRESTOR to get back
>>> to the state of the program just before receiving the signal?
>> The current Linux signal frame format has XSTATE in uncompacted format,
>> so everything has to be there.
>> Maybe we could have an opt in new signal frame format, but the details would need to be worked out.
>>
>> It is certainly the case that a signal should be able to be delivered, run “async-signal-safe” code,
>> and return, without corrupting register contents.
> And so an an acknowledgement:
> 
> We can't change the legacy signal stack format without breaking
> existing programs.  The legacy is uncompressed XSTATE.  It is a
> complete set of architectural state -- everything necessary to
> XRESTOR.  Further, the sigreturn flow allows the signal handler to
> *change* any of that state, so that it becomes active upon return from
> signal.

One nit with this: XRSTOR itself can work with the compacted format or
uncompacted format.  Unlike the XSAVE/XSAVEC side where compaction is
explicit from the instruction itself, XRSTOR changes its behavior by
reading XCOMP_BV.  There's no XRSTORC.

The issue with using the compacted format is when legacy software in the
signal handler needs to go access the state.  *That* is what can't
handle a change in the XSAVE buffer format (either optimized/XSAVEOPT,
or compacted/XSAVEC).