Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64/fpsimd: Don't disable softirq when touching FPSIMD/SVE state

[Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>]

On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 11:59:44AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> 
> On 4/17/19 3:01 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
> >On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 12:37:57PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> >>Hi Dave,
> >>
> >>On 16/04/2019 13:30, Dave Martin wrote:
> >>>On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 06:14:20PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:

[...]

> >>>>@@ -1125,19 +1194,18 @@ static void fpsimd_flush_cpu_state(void)
> >>>>  /*
> >>>>   * Save the FPSIMD state to memory and invalidate cpu view.
> >>>>- * This function must be called with softirqs (and preemption) disabled.
> >>>>+ * This function must be called with preemption disabled.
> >>>>   */
> >>>>  void fpsimd_save_and_flush_cpu_state(void)
> >>>>  {
> >>>>+	__get_cpu_fpsimd_context();
> >>>>  	fpsimd_save();
> >>>>  	fpsimd_flush_cpu_state();
> >>>>+	__put_cpu_fpsimd_context();
> >>>
> >>>It may be cleaner to avoid the assumption about preemption already being
> >>>disabled here.  fpsimd_thread_switch() is rather a special case, but for
> >>>this one is this really used on a hot path that justifies the assumption?
> >>
> >>It is currently only called with preemption disabled. So I thought it would
> >>be better to avoid disabling preemption again. But I am happy to use the
> >>non-__ version if you think it is better.
> >
> >Hmmm, this works either way.  Since this is not fast-path and has an
> >external caller, it might be worth adding a WARN_ON(preemptible()) here
> >if you want to stick with the __ functions.
> 
> As it is not a fastpath, I will use the non-underscore version.

OK, either is good for me.

Cheers
---Dave