Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALCETrW2QHa2TLvnUuVxAAheqcbSZ-5_WRXtDSAGcbG8N+gtdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <87lf9nk2ku.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <CALCETrWxJzf-rm9rqMpdxEtdVe+0OH7XRtWV=UzrgBDiPT=vVQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJvTdKkAzEeAKrEYMU-gBWXoNGyJ09ZGw1gsU0b3uCuo8vrX0A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210413034346.GA22861@1wt.eu> <CAJvTdKmLth==ZPv7ygLs0jFX7JRPVhVT82ZDoT4xcQRABEVTvQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210414095804.GB10709@zn.tnic>
In-Reply-To: <20210414095804.GB10709@zn.tnic>
From:   Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 14 Apr 2021 17:57:22 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJvTdKn_y8qAjDy189zEf8cnaWrvW3baca=z9FgGxV9AvQEADg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Candidate Linux ABI for Intel AMX and hypothetical new related features
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
        "Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-abi@vger.kernel.org,
        "libc-alpha@sourceware.org" <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>, Kyle Huey <me@kylehuey.com>,
        Keno Fischer <keno@juliacomputing.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 5:58 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 03:51:50PM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> > AMX does the type of matrix multiplication that AI algorithms use. In
> > the unlikely event that you or one of the libraries you call are doing
> > the same, then you will be very happy with AMX. Otherwise, you'll
> > probably not use it.
>
> Which sounds to me like AMX is something which should not be enabled
> automatically but explicitly requested. I don't see the majority of the
> processes on the majority of the Linux machines out there doing AI with
> AMX - at least not anytime soon. If it becomes ubiquitous later, we can
> make it automatic then.

I'm pretty sure that the "it isn't my use case of interest, so it
doesn't matter"
line of reasoning has long been established as -EINVAL ;-)