[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AF9C3EF.6000705@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:50:07 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Matteo Croce <technoboy85@...il.com>,
Sven-Haegar Koch <haegar@...net.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: i686 quirk for AMD Geode
On 11/10/2009 08:49 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
>> Why is using KVM doing it right ? It sounds like its doing it slowly,
>> and hideously memory inefficiently. You are solving an uninteresting
>> general case problem when you just need two tiny fixups (or perhaps 3 if
>> you want to fix up early x86-64 prefetch)
>>
> Why do we only need "two tiny fixups"? Where do we draw the line in
> terms of ISA compatibility? One could easily argue that the Right
> Thing[TM] is to be able to process any optional instruction -- otherwise
> one has a very difficult place to draw a line.
>
> Consider SSE3, for example. Why should the same concept not apply to
> SSE3 instructions as to CMOV?
>
Because then user programs would run 20x or more slower than the user
expects. Better to terminate early (and teach userspace how to choose
the instruction subset correctly).
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists