[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJvTdK=DCdwc86VdCVsCH+et6aGuAE3hi-wKmE5769SA0g1H-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 17:22:58 -0400
From: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, 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 API <linux-api@...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>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: Candidate Linux ABI for Intel AMX and hypothetical new related features
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 4:54 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
Thomas,
> > AMX is analogous to the multiplier used by AVX-512.
> > The architectural state must exist on every CPU, including HT siblings.
> > Today, the HT siblings share the same execution unit,
> > and I have no reason to expect that will change.
>
> I'm well aware that HT siblings share the same execution unit for
> AVX.
>
> Though AMX is if I remember the discussions two years ago correctly
> shared by more than the HT siblings which makes things worse.
I regret that we were unable to get together in the last year to have
an updated discussion. I think if we had, then we would have saved
a lot of mis-understanding and a lot of email!
So let me emphasize here:
There is one TMUL execution unit per core.
It is shared by the HT siblings within that core.
So the comparison to the AVX-512 multiplier is a good one.
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center
Powered by blists - more mailing lists