Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:43:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:43:31 -0500 Received: from ns.suse.de ([213.95.15.193]:59918 "EHLO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:43:30 -0500 To: "Sowadski, Craig Harold (UMR-Student)" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.4.20 amd speculative caching References: From: Andi Kleen Date: 19 Feb 2003 18:53:33 +0100 In-Reply-To: "Sowadski, Craig Harold's message of "19 Feb 2003 17:39:31 +0100" Message-ID: X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1130 Lines: 22 "Sowadski, Craig Harold (UMR-Student)" writes: > I have recently upgraded to an AMD processor that is exhibiting the > problems with the AMD speculative caching bug. Kernel 2.4.19 seems to It's actually not an AMD bug, but an Linux bug that assumed undefined x86 behaviour to behave well. > fix the problem with the temporary work-around (adv-spec-cache patch). I > have noticed that the patch has been removed from 2.4.20 and I am > wondering if there is some other mechanism that is supposed to address > this issue. Currently I have a 2.4.20 kernel with same configuration as Yes, there is a new mechanism to address the problem the adv-spec-cache patch solved. It enforces that there are not conflicting cache attributes for memory mappings. > my 2.4.19 and the problem seems to have reappeared. What problem exactly? And does mem=nopentium help ? -Andi - 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/