[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YGGBRpsephlAubS1@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 09:27:02 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
libc-alpha <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>, Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>,
Keno Fischer <keno@...iacomputing.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Candidate Linux ABI for Intel AMX and hypothetical new related
features
On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 01:53:15AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Though the little devil in my head tells me, that making AMX support
> depend on the CPUID faulting capability might be not the worst thing.
>
> Then we actually enforce CPUID faulting (finally) on CPUs which support
> it, which would be a first step into the right direction simply because
> then random library X has to go to the kernel and ask for it explicitely
> or just shrug and use whatever the kernel is willing to hand out in
> CPUID.
>
> Now take that one step further. When the first part of some user space
> application asks for it, then you can register that with the process and
> make sane decisions for all other requesters which come after it, which
> is an important step into the direction of having a common orchestration
> for this.
I wrote something like that at least one...
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190212164833.GK32494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net/
we just need to make sure AMD implements that before it ships a chip
with AVX512 on.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists