Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux 5.13 Lands More Fixes To The Mucked Up FPU/XSTATE Handling Mess

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Linux 5.13 Lands More Fixes To The Mucked Up FPU/XSTATE Handling Mess

    Phoronix: Linux 5.13 Lands More Fixes To The Mucked Up FPU/XSTATE Handling Mess

    Earlier this month Linux 5.13 disabled Intel's ENQCMD functionality for upcoming Xeon "Sapphire Rapids" processors as the kernel software code around it was deemed "broken beyond repair". More of the recent Intel-submitted patches around reworking kernel code in preparation for upcoming CPU features has been found to be rather hairy after already being mainlined and thus another batch of urgent x86 fixes were sent in this morning...

    https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...re-XSTATE-Mess

  • #2
    We'll see what the "a lot more in the pipe" amounts to in the coming days
    Seems to me that "a lot more in the pipe" is what got them into this mess.

    Comment


    • #3
      Unit tests Intel, what are they? Change the code, test the code. Do not submit it if thing in question breaks horribly.
      Last edited by Snaipersky; 20 June 2021, 04:27 PM. Reason: A word

      Comment


      • #4
        Current workstation uses dual Xeon E5-2697 v2 processors with 128GB memory.

        Not sure whether this affects me.

        Comment


        • #5
          Whodunnit?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

            Seems to me that "a lot more in the pipe" is what got them into this mess.
            Do they all work in Oregon?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Snaipersky View Post
              Unit tests Intel, what are they? Change the code, test the code. Do not submit it if thing in break horribly.
              Lol, unit tests for kernel code and hardware are tough. Maybe with an emulator that emulates the specific hardware in question.......

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by sandy8925 View Post

                Lol, unit tests for kernel code and hardware are tough. Maybe with an emulator that emulates the specific hardware in question.......
                I should hope you have either an accurate emulator or actual hardware to test on, instead of submitting to mainline code that you hope works and then later ascertaining through unspecified means that it's absolute garbage and shouldn't have been committed in the first place.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Snaipersky View Post

                  I should hope you have either an accurate emulator or actual hardware to test on, instead of submitting to mainline code that you hope works and then later ascertaining through unspecified means that it's absolute garbage and shouldn't have been committed in the first place.
                  Well since we are talking about x86 CPU's here, "accurately emulating" such a thing is close to impossible and if we are talking about unreleased hardware, the only company that has the hardware in question is Intel and they are the ones submitting the patch in the first place.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post

                    Well since we are talking about x86 CPU's here, "accurately emulating" such a thing is close to impossible and if we are talking about unreleased hardware, the only company that has the hardware in question is Intel and they are the ones submitting the patch in the first place.
                    That's the point. If you look further up, I've been directing my criticism towards Intel, for submitting to mainline code that they themselves have not tested, either against their product or an emulation thereof.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X