On 01/21/16 13:19, Leonid Shatz wrote:
>
> Thank you all for your feedback and clarifications. That's was my assumption
> that SDM was somewhat misleading, but I was not %100 sure about it. It could
> be nice, though to see future releases of SDM taking this issue in account.
>
It will.
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 01:08:18PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 01/21/16 13:03, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
>> > Hello Leonid,
>> >
>> > You are probably right. Let me check this and get back to you.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Yu-cheng
>> >
>>
>> The hardware people have gotten back to us and this inc
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 01:08:18PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 01/21/16 13:03, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> > Hello Leonid,
> >
> > You are probably right. Let me check this and get back to you.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Yu-cheng
> >
>
> The hardware people have gotten back to us and this inconsistency
On 01/21/16 13:03, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> Hello Leonid,
>
> You are probably right. Let me check this and get back to you.
>
> Thanks,
> Yu-cheng
>
The hardware people have gotten back to us and this inconsistency in the
SDM is unintentional (other places in the SDM has it correctly.) So we
shou
Hello Leonid,
You are probably right. Let me check this and get back to you.
Thanks,
Yu-cheng
On Jan 21, 2016 12:12 PM, "H. Peter Anvin" 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
> >>
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 engin
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.
H
Regarding the patch disabling AVX when eagerfpu is off:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=3
94db20ca240741a08d472173db13d6f6a6e5a28
We have a suggestion that Intel documentation related to usage of CR0.TS bit
may be not properly updated with additional sup
9 matches
Mail list logo
