Re: Candidate Linux ABI for Intel AMX and hypothetical new related features

[Thomas Gleixner]

Len,

On Thu, May 20 2021 at 17:49, Len Brown wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:41 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>   2) It has effects on power/thermal and therefore effects which reach
>>      outside of the core scope
>
> FWIW, this is true of *every* instruction in the CPU.
> Indeed, even when the CPU is executing *no* instructions at all,
> the C-state chosen by that CPU has power/thermal impacts on its peers.
>
> Granted, high performance instructions such as AVX-512 and TMUL
> are the most extreme case.

Right and we have to draw the line somewhere.

>>   3) Your approach of making it unconditionally available via the
>>      proposed #NM prevents the OS and subsequently the system admin /
>>      system designer to implement fine grained control over that
>>      resource.
>>
>>      And no, an opt-in approach by providing a non-mandatory
>>      preallocation prctl does not solve that problem.
>
> I'm perfectly fine with making the explicit allocation (aka opt-in) mandatory,
> and enforcing it.

Great!

Thanks,

        tglx