From: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, mingo@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org,
bp@alien8.de, fenghua.yu@intel.com, tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] x86, fpu: check CPU-provided sizes against struct declarations
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 09:02:51 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55E0862B.1030907@sr71.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150828052500.GH25556@gmail.com>
On 08/27/2015 10:25 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> wrote:
>> @@ -447,6 +492,14 @@ static void do_extra_xstate_size_checks(
>> paranoid_xstate_size += xfeature_size(i);
>> }
>> XSTATE_WARN_ON(paranoid_xstate_size != xstate_size);
>> + /*
>> + * Basically, make sure that XSTATE_RESERVE has forced
>> + * xregs_state to be large enough. This is not fatal
>> + * because we reserve a *lot* of extra room in the init
>> + * task struct, but we should at least know we got it
>> + * wrong.
>> + */
>> + XSTATE_WARN_ON(xstate_size > sizeof(struct xregs_state));
>
> So do we need to warn about this? arch_task_struct_size is already dynamic today.
I'm unsure what _actually_ blew up, but I missed adding protection keys
and AVX-512 to XSTATE_RESERVE and the kernel crashed the first time I
did a non-init-state-PKRU XSAVE.
> The only problem would be the init task, which is allocated statically - can we
> fix that?
We could theoretically make it dynamic, but I'm really not sure it's
worth the trouble. I just removed the init_task=INIT_TASK()
initialization to see what would happen and something blew up early
(last I saw on the console was the "early console in setup code").
The current size of the non-XSAVE data in task_struct is ~2k. The xsave
data is 800-something bytes, so say ~1k. Our init_task ends up being
~6k, 3k of which is wasted. On an AVX-512 CPU, that means 1k of waste.
>From how early things died, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that
we'll need to bootmem alloc our new dynamic init_task and probably can't
practically wait for the slab to show up. Bootmem can only do full
pages, so our 6k can be trimmed to 4k. On an AVX-512 CPU, the 6k goes
*up* to 8k.
It doesn't look like a fun exercise for 2k of memory savings.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-28 16:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-27 17:11 [PATCH 00/11] [v2] x86, fpu: XSAVE cleanups and sanity checks Dave Hansen
2015-08-27 17:11 ` [PATCH 01/11] x86, fpu: kill LWP support Dave Hansen
2015-08-28 4:50 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-08-27 17:11 ` [PATCH 03/11] x86, fpu: rework XSTATE_* macros to remove magic '2' Dave Hansen
2015-08-27 17:11 ` [PATCH 02/11] x86, fpu: rename xfeature_bit Dave Hansen
2015-08-28 5:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-08-27 17:11 ` [PATCH 04/11] x86, fpu: remove xfeature_nr Dave Hansen
2015-08-28 5:06 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-08-27 17:11 ` [PATCH 05/11] x86, fpu: add helper xfeature_nr_enabled() instead of test_bit() Dave Hansen
2015-08-28 5:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-08-27 17:11 ` [PATCH 06/11] x86, fpu: rework MPX 'xstate' types Dave Hansen
2015-08-27 17:11 ` [PATCH 07/11] x86, fpu: rework YMM definition Dave Hansen
2015-08-27 17:11 ` [PATCH 08/11] x86, fpu: add C structures for AVX-512 state components Dave Hansen
2015-08-28 5:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-08-27 17:11 ` [PATCH 10/11] x86, fpu: check to ensure increasing-offset xstate offsets Dave Hansen
2015-08-27 17:11 ` [PATCH 09/11] x86, fpu: correct and check XSAVE xstate size calculations Dave Hansen
2015-08-28 4:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-08-28 14:31 ` Dave Hansen
2015-08-28 16:44 ` Andi Kleen
2015-08-27 17:11 ` [PATCH 11/11] x86, fpu: check CPU-provided sizes against struct declarations Dave Hansen
2015-08-28 5:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-08-28 16:02 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2015-08-28 5:18 ` [PATCH 00/11] [v2] x86, fpu: XSAVE cleanups and sanity checks Ingo Molnar
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-08-25 20:12 [PATCH 00/11] " Dave Hansen
2015-08-25 20:12 ` [PATCH 11/11] x86, fpu: check CPU-provided sizes against struct declarations Dave Hansen
2015-08-26 16:18 ` Tim Chen
2015-08-26 16:19 ` Dave Hansen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=55E0862B.1030907@sr71.net \
--to=dave@sr71.net \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=fenghua.yu@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome