Re: [PATCH] x86: make clflush a required feature on x86_64

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...>
Cc: Kyle McMartin <kyle@...>, <tglx@...>, <mingo@...>, <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Friday, January 18, 2008 - 9:56 am

Andi Kleen wrote:

Well, simulators are generally expected to follow the architecture, not 
vice versa.  I would tend to agree with the coupling that recent 
versions of Bochs appeared to have made here -- I think we're unlikely 
to see any processors with sse2 sans clflush, so keeping code branches 
in which will never be executed seems like a bad idea in the long term. 
  I'm much more worried about the possibility of embedded 64-bit CPUs 
who try to skimp on SSE2 than CLFLUSH.

Now, that being said, this being encapsulated in the required set (and 
unified, which means the branches will be executed on 32-bit hardware) 
it seems the impact of leaving them in is small for now.  We can 
re-evaluate that as appropriate.  Either way, we should *not* have 
#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64 around usage sites, circumventing the master 
switch.  It either goes in the required masks or it doesn't.


OK, so we're talking about outdated versions of Bochs, then?

	-hpa

--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH] x86: make clflush a required feature on x86_64, Kyle McMartin, (Fri Jan 18, 12:59 am)
Re: [PATCH] x86: make clflush a required feature on x86_64, H. Peter Anvin, (Fri Jan 18, 2:27 am)
Re: [PATCH] x86: make clflush a required feature on x86_64, H. Peter Anvin, (Fri Jan 18, 9:56 am)
Re: [PATCH] x86: make clflush a required feature on x86_64, H. Peter Anvin, (Fri Jan 18, 1:04 am)
[PATCH] x86_64: remove redundant cpu_has_ definitions, Kyle McMartin, (Fri Jan 18, 1:25 am)