[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJvTdKn_y8qAjDy189zEf8cnaWrvW3baca=z9FgGxV9AvQEADg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 17:57:22 -0400
From: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"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>, linux-abi@...r.kernel.org,
"libc-alpha@...rceware.org" <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>, Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>,
Keno Fischer <keno@...iacomputing.com>
Subject: Re: Candidate Linux ABI for Intel AMX and hypothetical new related features
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 5:58 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 03:51:50PM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> > AMX does the type of matrix multiplication that AI algorithms use. In
> > the unlikely event that you or one of the libraries you call are doing
> > the same, then you will be very happy with AMX. Otherwise, you'll
> > probably not use it.
>
> Which sounds to me like AMX is something which should not be enabled
> automatically but explicitly requested. I don't see the majority of the
> processes on the majority of the Linux machines out there doing AI with
> AMX - at least not anytime soon. If it becomes ubiquitous later, we can
> make it automatic then.
I'm pretty sure that the "it isn't my use case of interest, so it
doesn't matter"
line of reasoning has long been established as -EINVAL ;-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists