Re: [RFC 0/3] Basic support for LWP

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 10/07/2010 07:11 AM, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 3:59 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 10/07/2010 03:46 AM, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>>>
>>> As for the patch itself, I am not an expert at xsave/xrstor, but it seems to
>>> me you could decouple LWP from FPU. I think  Brian had the same comment.
>>> I suspect this can be done and it will certainly look cleaner.
>>>
>>
>> Well, once you're using XSAVE you're not decoupled from the FPU.  Worse,
>> if you're using XSAVE and not honoring CR0.TS you have a major design flaw.
>>
> Is that to say, that if you use LWP you will have to save/restore FPU state even
> though you're not actually using it?
> 

No, but you wouldn't be able to use lazy FPU.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/