]> git.proxmox.com Git - mirror_ubuntu-artful-kernel.git/blame - arch/x86/include/asm/i387.h
lguest, x86: handle guest TS bit for lazy/non-lazy fpu host models
[mirror_ubuntu-artful-kernel.git] / arch / x86 / include / asm / i387.h
CommitLineData
1eeaed76
RM
1/*
2 * Copyright (C) 1994 Linus Torvalds
3 *
4 * Pentium III FXSR, SSE support
5 * General FPU state handling cleanups
6 * Gareth Hughes <gareth@valinux.com>, May 2000
7 * x86-64 work by Andi Kleen 2002
8 */
9
1965aae3
PA
10#ifndef _ASM_X86_I387_H
11#define _ASM_X86_I387_H
1eeaed76 12
3b0d6596
HX
13#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
14
1eeaed76 15#include <linux/sched.h>
e4914012 16#include <linux/hardirq.h>
1361b83a
LT
17
18struct pt_regs;
19struct user_i387_struct;
1eeaed76 20
aa283f49 21extern int init_fpu(struct task_struct *child);
36454936 22extern int dump_fpu(struct pt_regs *, struct user_i387_struct *);
1361b83a 23extern void math_state_restore(void);
1eeaed76 24
8546c008
LT
25extern bool irq_fpu_usable(void);
26extern void kernel_fpu_begin(void);
27extern void kernel_fpu_end(void);
1eeaed76 28
e4914012
SS
29/*
30 * Some instructions like VIA's padlock instructions generate a spurious
31 * DNA fault but don't modify SSE registers. And these instructions
0b8c3d5a
CE
32 * get used from interrupt context as well. To prevent these kernel instructions
33 * in interrupt context interacting wrongly with other user/kernel fpu usage, we
e4914012
SS
34 * should use them only in the context of irq_ts_save/restore()
35 */
36static inline int irq_ts_save(void)
37{
38 /*
0b8c3d5a
CE
39 * If in process context and not atomic, we can take a spurious DNA fault.
40 * Otherwise, doing clts() in process context requires disabling preemption
41 * or some heavy lifting like kernel_fpu_begin()
e4914012 42 */
0b8c3d5a 43 if (!in_atomic())
e4914012
SS
44 return 0;
45
46 if (read_cr0() & X86_CR0_TS) {
47 clts();
48 return 1;
49 }
50
51 return 0;
52}
53
54static inline void irq_ts_restore(int TS_state)
55{
56 if (TS_state)
57 stts();
58}
59
15d8791c
LT
60/*
61 * The question "does this thread have fpu access?"
62 * is slightly racy, since preemption could come in
63 * and revoke it immediately after the test.
64 *
65 * However, even in that very unlikely scenario,
66 * we can just assume we have FPU access - typically
67 * to save the FP state - we'll just take a #NM
68 * fault and get the FPU access back.
15d8791c
LT
69 */
70static inline int user_has_fpu(void)
71{
1361b83a 72 return current->thread.fpu.has_fpu;
1eeaed76
RM
73}
74
8546c008 75extern void unlazy_fpu(struct task_struct *tsk);
1eeaed76 76
3b0d6596
HX
77#endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */
78
1965aae3 79#endif /* _ASM_X86_I387_H */