[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F06566B.8080708@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 18:03:23 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>, mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: x86-64: memset()/memcpy() not fully standards compliant
On 01/05/2012 05:47 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>>
>> Is that still true, and do we even use string instructions still on
>> those old CPUs? Jan's fixes don't introduce any additional delays in
>> the non-string-instruction paths.
>
> Yes various of the CPUs with bugs used string instructions.
>
Which CPUs are you talking about here?
>
> Both string and non string instructions are used on modern CPUs,
> so making any of that slower is not a good idea.
>
Obviously not, but I'm perfectly fine turning REP_GOOD off on old broken
CPUs.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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