i387: Uninline the generic FP helpers that we expose to kernel modules
Instead of exporting the very low-level internals of the FPU state
save/restore code (ie things like 'fpu_owner_task'), we should export
the higher-level interfaces.
Inlining these things is pointless anyway: sure, sometimes the end
result is small, but while 'stts()' can result in just three x86
instructions, those are not cheap instructions (writing %cr0 is a
serializing instruction and a very slow one at that).
So the overhead of a function call is not noticeable, and we really
don't want random modules mucking about with our internal state save
logic anyway.
So this unexports 'fpu_owner_task', and instead uninlines and exports
the actual functions that modules can use: fpu_kernel_begin/end() and
unlazy_fpu().
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.LFD.2.02.1202211339590.5354@i5.linux-foundation.org
Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/i387.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/i387.h
index 2479049..0c1031d 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/i387.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/i387.h
@@ -419,70 +419,9 @@
}
}
-/*
- * Were we in an interrupt that interrupted kernel mode?
- *
- * 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).
- */
-static inline bool interrupted_kernel_fpu_idle(void)
-{
- 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.
- */
-static inline bool irq_fpu_usable(void)
-{
- return !in_interrupt() ||
- interrupted_user_mode() ||
- interrupted_kernel_fpu_idle();
-}
-
-static inline void kernel_fpu_begin(void)
-{
- struct task_struct *me = current;
-
- WARN_ON_ONCE(!irq_fpu_usable());
- preempt_disable();
- if (__thread_has_fpu(me)) {
- __save_init_fpu(me);
- __thread_clear_has_fpu(me);
- /* We do 'stts()' in kernel_fpu_end() */
- } else {
- percpu_write(fpu_owner_task, NULL);
- clts();
- }
-}
-
-static inline void kernel_fpu_end(void)
-{
- stts();
- preempt_enable();
-}
+extern bool irq_fpu_usable(void);
+extern void kernel_fpu_begin(void);
+extern void kernel_fpu_end(void);
/*
* Some instructions like VIA's padlock instructions generate a spurious
@@ -566,16 +505,7 @@
preempt_enable();
}
-static inline void unlazy_fpu(struct task_struct *tsk)
-{
- preempt_disable();
- if (__thread_has_fpu(tsk)) {
- __save_init_fpu(tsk);
- __thread_fpu_end(tsk);
- } else
- tsk->fpu_counter = 0;
- preempt_enable();
-}
+extern void unlazy_fpu(struct task_struct *tsk);
static inline void clear_fpu(struct task_struct *tsk)
{