On Jan 21, 2016 12:12 PM, "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 01/21/16 12:08, Dave Hansen wrote: > > On 01/21/2016 02:33 AM, Leonid Shatz wrote: > >> In view of above findings we would like to suggest to double check if > >> disabling AVX together with "eagerfpu off" is actually required and is a > >> real necessity. It would be helpful to consult with Intel engineers > >> regarding related design details. > > > > Hi Leonid, > > > > Thanks for the report! > > > > Are you aware of any actual eagerfpu=off use in practice, or is this > > mostly a theoretical concern? > > > > Looking into this, FWIW.
I still think that we should default eagerfpu=on on all CPUs for one release and then, when nothing breaks, delete all the old lazy code. I'll respin and send that patch. --Andy
