Re: [PATCH] Mutilated form of Andi Kleen's AMD prefetch errata patch

[Jamie Lokier]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Doesn't refusing to boot seem to heavy handed for this bug?  The buggy
> > CPUs have been around for many years (it is practically the entire AMD
> > line for the last 4 years or so), and nobody in userspace has
> > complained about the 2.4 behaviour so far.  (Linux 2.4 behaviour is,
> > of course, to ignore the errata).
> 
> That is the case at present.  But the 2.6 kernel was hitting this
> erracularity daily.

We're talking about what to offer userspace now...  I think we all
agree that the kernel itself shouldn't be allowed to hit it, one way
or another.

> If some smart cookie decides to add prefetches to some STL implementation
> or something, they are likely to start hitting it with the same frequency.

Especially now that GCC has intrinsics for prefetches, and GCC's
optimiser can generate prefetches automatically (-fprefetch-loop-arrays).

But if they assume the kernel hides it, they'll still hit it on any of
the huge installed base of <=4 year old AMD boxes running 2.2 and 2.4.

Ideally, userspace should just not compile with prefetch if they think
they might run on one of those - or select different code at run time
- it is not so different from the constraints which say SSE code
simply won't run on some CPUs or old kernels anyway.  (prefetch is
worse on a P5 than a K7 - it'll throw an illegal opcode exception :)

I understand you're advocating a policy that says we can't do anything
about old systems, but from 2.6 onwards apps can depend on not being
hit by that erratum in userspace, is that right?

-- Jamie
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/