Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 16 Dec 2002 21:27:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 16 Dec 2002 21:27:26 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:39684 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 16 Dec 2002 21:27:26 -0500 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 18:36:20 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Dave Jones cc: Ingo Molnar , Subject: Re: Intel P6 vs P7 system call performance In-Reply-To: <20021217010321.GD31294@suse.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1288 Lines: 35 On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Dave Jones wrote: > > I'm sure I recall seeing errata on at least 1 CPU re sysenter. > If we do decide to go this route, we'll need to blacklist ones > with any really icky problems. The errata is something like "all P6's report SEP, but it doesn't actually _work_ on anything before the third stepping". However, that should _not_ be handled by magic sysenter-specific code. That's what the per-vendor cpu feature fixups are there for, so that these kinds of bugs get fixed in _one_ place (initialization) and not in all the users of the feature flags. In fact, we already have that code in the proper place, namely arch/i386/kernel/cpu/intel.c: /* SEP CPUID bug: Pentium Pro reports SEP but doesn't have it */ if ( c->x86 == 6 && c->x86_model < 3 && c->x86_mask < 3 ) clear_bit(X86_FEATURE_SEP, c->x86_capability); so the stuff I sent out should work on everything. (Modulo the missing syscall page I already mentioned and potential bugs in the code itself, of course ;) Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/