Re: cpu_no_speculation omissions?

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 09:20:58PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2018-07-16 at 10:28 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > > On 07/16/2018 09:56 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > > > > At least the Centerton (late-generation Bonnell uarch) Atom
> > > > > > family is
> > > > > > omitted from the cpu_no_speculation table added by commit
> > > > > > fec9434a12f3
> > > > > > to arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c. Is this intentional? Would a
> > > > > > patch
> > > > > > adding it and possibly other omissions be welcome?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Probably. Dave?
> > > > 
> > > > IIRC, Alan Cox was compiling a list on what is affected vs. not.  He
> > > > would know way better than I.
> > > 
> > > The pre Silvermont atom cores are in order. When I did the original
> > > list I didn't bother with all the 32bit cores as we didn't have any
> > > 32bit mitigations then.
> > 
> > At least we should give the users that warm and fuzzy feeling that they are
> > not affected.
> 
> It's not just fuzzies -- my box was actually affected by slowdown for

I was talking about 32bit. Yours seem to be 64bit.

Thanks,

	tglx