[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOp9S0A++Gf1hRoAL4tENk-xRk3yc=_Vx=V_+K63DOXspA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 13:43:51 -0700
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>,
"Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@...hat.com>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
libc-alpha <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>
Subject: Re: Why does glibc use AVX-512?
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 1:35 PM Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de> wrote:
>
> All this needs to work transparently without user intervention. We
> cannot require firmware upgrades to fix the incorrect RTM reporting
> issue (the bug I referenced). I think we can require software updates
> which tell glibc when to use RTM-enabled string functions if the
> dynamic selection does not work (either for performance reasons, or
> because of the RTM reporting bug).
>
> I want to avoid a situation where one in eight processes fail to work
> correctly because the CPUID checks ran on CPU 0, where RTM is reported
> as available, and then we trap when executing XTEST on other CPUs.
glibc can disable RTM based on CPU model and stepping.
--
H.J.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists