mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Richard B. Johnson" <root@chaos.analogic.com>
To: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@hotmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux Kernel Microcode Question
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:59:55 -0500 (EST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0403181149580.29318@chaos> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Law10-F95ihL5C2Skqk00028182@hotmail.com>

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Justin Piszcz wrote:
[SNIPPED...]
>
> My question is, what are the advantages vs disadvantages in updating your
> CPU's microcode?
>
> Is it worth it?

Remember the CPU with the f00f bug? How about the FP unit bug?
With ucode updates, those bugs can be fixed with zero overhead,
just an additional second or two of boot-time.

>
> Does it matter what type of Intel CPU you have?
>
Of course, some don't have WCS (Writable control-store) and
therefore can't be updated.

> Do some CPU's benefit more than others for microcode updates?
>

Only the broken ones.

>
> Can anyone explain reasons to or not to update the CPU microcode?
>

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it.".... But there are some people
who want the "latest and greatest" even though there is no performance
change at all.

When new CPUs hit the market there are some "immature features", i.e.,
BUGS. With a WCS, micro-code work-arounds can be provided so that
the CPU doesn't have to be thrown away. If you use the wrong micro-
code, perhaps the "latest and greatest", you may actually break
the CPU because the work-arounds go away.

Review the stuff on http://www.x86.org. Even though it's slanted
far to the left, there is some good information there.

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.24 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
            Note 96.31% of all statistics are fiction.



  parent reply	other threads:[~2004-03-18 17:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-03-18 16:40 Justin Piszcz
2004-03-18 16:59 ` Dave Jones
2004-03-18 17:13   ` David Schwartz
2004-03-19 17:27     ` Tigran Aivazian
2004-03-19 23:16       ` David Schwartz
2004-03-22 11:55         ` Tigran Aivazian
2004-03-22 15:51       ` Timothy Miller
2004-03-22 15:40         ` Tigran Aivazian
2004-03-22 16:19           ` Timothy Miller
2004-03-22 19:14           ` David Schwartz
2004-03-22 20:58             ` John Bradford
2004-03-22 16:13         ` Richard B. Johnson
2004-03-22 16:51           ` Timothy Miller
2004-03-22 17:14             ` Richard B. Johnson
2004-03-18 16:59 ` Richard B. Johnson [this message]
2004-03-18 17:07   ` Robert Love
2004-03-19  0:16   ` Bill Davidsen
2004-03-19 12:56     ` Richard B. Johnson
2004-03-18 22:20 ` Tigran Aivazian
2004-03-18 17:19 Nakajima, Jun

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.53.0403181149580.29318@chaos \
    --to=root@chaos.analogic.com \
    --cc=jpiszcz@hotmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®