| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1A7043D5F58CCB44A599DFD55ED4C94846861500@fmsmsx115.amr.corp.intel.com> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:37:52 +0000 From: "Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org> CC: "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/1] x86: replace cpu_up hard-coded mdelay with variable > What's the cutoff for 'modern hardware' - which CPUs stopped requiring > the delay? This is the topic of ongoing research, and I'm not ready to send the patch setting a new default until I've heard back from a few more HW people. Every system I've tested appears to work with delay 0. Were I to guess, I'd venture that every system that runs an X86_64 kernel might count as "modern" -- even the 2005 AMD Turion laptop I've got in the bone pile. > Also, is there any public document where the no-delay is specified for > 'modern hardware'? Unfortunately only the converse is true. There is an ancient document specifying that the delay may be necessary. cheers, -Len -- 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