On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 08:56:43AM -0500, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Andi Kleen wrote: > >>Simulators can be fixed, > > > >They could, but why? I don't know of a good reason to require CLFLUSH. > > Well, simulators are generally expected to follow the architecture, not > vice versa. I would tend to agree with the coupling that recent > versions of Bochs appeared to have made here -- I think we're unlikely > to see any processors with sse2 sans clflush, so keeping code branches > in which will never be executed seems like a bad idea in the long term.
Here's another argument: Ingo just asked me to add a noclflush option to the code. Guess what check that option will need? Besides compared to the cost of a flushing clflush the branches are absolutely in the noise. -Andi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
