On Fri, 19 May 2006 08:02:08 +0800 David Xu <davidxu_at_freebsd.org> wrote: > On Friday 19 May 2006 07:37, Rostislav Krasny wrote: > > On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 16:19:29 -0700 > > > > Colin Percival <cperciva_at_freebsd.org> wrote: > > > Rostislav Krasny wrote: > > > > Other possible solution is making the fpu_clean_state() optional by > > > > something like following: > > > > > > > > #ifdef BUG_FXSAVE > > > > #define fpu_clean_state() __fpu_clean_state() > > > > #else > > > > #define fpu_clean_state() ; > > > > #endif > > > > > > > > ... and including "options BUG_FXSAVE" to GENERIC. > > > > > > Yes, this is probably the right solution. My priority was to fix the > > > bug; optimizing performance comes second. > > > > Ok. Is this solution going to be done some day? I could try to make a > > patch but I'm not familiar with the build infrastructure internals. > > > > P.S. what is a better option name: "options BUG_FXSAVE" or "options > > AMD_FXSAVE"? > > Patch is welcome, Ok. What should I do before adding the above #ifdef's? Is it enough to change following files only? src/sys/conf/options src/sys/i386/conf/GENERIC src/sys/i386/conf/NOTES src/sys/i386/conf/PAE src/sys/i386/conf/SMP src/sys/amd64/conf/GENERIC src/sys/amd64/conf/NOTES src/sys/amd64/conf/SMP > but I would call it BUG_FXSAVE like Linux's select() > changed timeout value which only added incompatibility rather than > advantage. I don't know about Linux's select() but according to what I've seen on their "7466f9e72dac13452d871a3fb72fc7bd9c93c864" commit they use X86_FEATURE_FXSAVE_LEAK. What do you think about FXSAVE_LEAK instead of BUG_FXSAVE?Received on Thu May 18 2006 - 23:36:30 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:55 UTC