On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Alan Cox <gno...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>
> static int in_order_cpu(void)
> {
> /* Processors with CPU id etc */
> if (x86_match_cpu(cpu_in_order))
> return 1;
> /* Other rules here */
> return 0;
> }
Note that "in-order" does *not* necessarily mean "no speculation". You
still do branch prediction, you still have a BTB for all but the
simplest in-order things, and you may still end up running
instructions at least part-way through a pipeline. Whether it gets to
a cache replacement or not is unclear.
So that naming is very misleading.
It is quite possible (even likely) that the old in-order Atoms do not
have this issue, because it's definitely true that in-order tends to
limit speculation a lot, and any mis-predict will _probably_ kill
instructions early enough that you'd never see this.
But meltdown, for example, is based entirely on uarch details in the
memory pipeline, not on in-order vs ooo. Again, an in-order CPU is
probably less aggressive in the memory pipeline too, so there is
probably strong correlation, but there is no causal relationship.
Linus
