Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 16 Jul 2018 22:38:40 +0200 (CEST) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: cpu_no_speculation omissions? |
| |
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, Rich Felker wrote: > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 09:20:58PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, Alan Cox wrote: > > > On Mon, 2018-07-16 at 10:28 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > > > > On 07/16/2018 09:56 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, Rich Felker wrote: > > > > > > At least the Centerton (late-generation Bonnell uarch) Atom > > > > > > family is > > > > > > omitted from the cpu_no_speculation table added by commit > > > > > > fec9434a12f3 > > > > > > to arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c. Is this intentional? Would a > > > > > > patch > > > > > > adding it and possibly other omissions be welcome? > > > > > > > > > > Probably. Dave? > > > > > > > > IIRC, Alan Cox was compiling a list on what is affected vs. not. He > > > > would know way better than I. > > > > > > The pre Silvermont atom cores are in order. When I did the original > > > list I didn't bother with all the 32bit cores as we didn't have any > > > 32bit mitigations then. > > > > At least we should give the users that warm and fuzzy feeling that they are > > not affected. > > It's not just fuzzies -- my box was actually affected by slowdown for
I was talking about 32bit. Yours seem to be 64bit.
Thanks,
tglx
| |