Time to look for a kernel update...

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
98 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to look for a kernel update...

Marcus Meissner
Hi,

While a performance hit will likely be there, it is hard to say how big
it will be. It really depends on the workload.

Ciao, Marcus

On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 08:12:19PM -0200, Jones de Andrade wrote:

> Am I wrong, or does it mean that a performance hit is unavoidable?
>
> Em 4 de jan de 2018 6:25 PM, "Marcus Meissner" <[hidden email]> escreveu:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 08:12:53PM +0100, Daniel Bauer wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Am 04.01.2018 um 19:52 schrieb James Knott:
> > > >On 01/04/2018 01:50 PM, James Knott wrote:
> > > >>>You could suffer worse ... TYPICAL slowdown is supposed to be about
> > > >>>>5%. Worst case is nearer 30% I believe ...
> > > >>I see there's a couple of software updates available now,
> > > >>kernel-firmware and microcode updates for AMD CPUs.  Would these have
> > > >>anything to do with this problem.
> > > >
> > > >It appears they do.  Here's what the patch description says:
> > > >
> > > >"openSUSE-2018-1 - Security update for kernel-firmware
> > > >
> > > >This update for kernel-firmware fixes the following issues:
> > > >- Add microcode_amd_fam17h.bin (bsc#1068032 CVE-2017-5715)
> > > >This new firmware disables branch prediction on AMD family 17h processor
> > > >to mitigate a attack on the branch predictor that could lead to
> > > >information disclosure from e.g. kernel memory (bsc#1068032
> > CVE-2017-5715)."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > So with intel this doesn't help and must not be installed?
> >
> > For Intel the update is "ucode-intel".
> >
> > it is just part of the fix, the kernel update is needed to implement it.
> >
> > Ciao, Marcus
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> >

--
Marcus Meissner,SUSE LINUX GmbH; Maxfeldstrasse 5; D-90409 Nuernberg; Zi. 3.1-33,+49-911-740 53-432,,serv=loki,mail=wotan,type=real <[hidden email]>

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: time to pressure Intel for a chip replacement (was Re: Time to look for a kernel update...)

Christopher Myers-2
In reply to this post by James Knott
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512



On Fri, 2018-01-05 at 08:49 -0500, James Knott wrote:

> On 01/05/2018 08:30 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Friday, 2018-01-05 at 04:40 -0600, David C. Rankin wrote:
> >
> > > On 01/04/2018 09:25 PM, James Knott wrote:
> > > > Here's something interesting:
> > > >
> >
> > http://www.pcgamer.com/intel-ceo-sold-39-million-in-company-shares-
> > prior-to-disclosure-of-cpu-security-flaws/
> >
> > > Text-book example of insider trading....
> >
> > They claim it is unrelated, because the sale was planned before.
> >
>
> From
> https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/04/after-meltdown-and-spectre-revelati
> on-questions-arise-about-timing-of-intel-ceos-stock-sales/
>
> "The shares were sold in accordance with a SEC Rule 10b5-1 plan,
> which
> is intended to prevent illegal insider trading by allowing company
> executives to create predetermined, automatic selling plans. The Form
> 4
> filed by Krzanich, however, state that the plan was adopted on
> October
> 30, 2017—months after Google says it informed Intel and other
> affected
> companies
> <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cyber-intel/design-flaw-found-in-
> intel-chips-fix-causes-them-to-slow-report-idUSKBN1ES1BO>
> about the bugs in June, which in turn were only made public this week
> in
> reports by The Register
> <https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_flaw/>and
> other media."
>
>
>
>

History repeats itself...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-equifax-cyber/equifax-clears-executi
ves-who-sold-shares-after-hack-idUSKBN1D31EK

I anticipate a similar course of action soon, where someone at Intel
says "but the CEO didn't find out about the breach until aaaaaafter the
sale!"

Uh huh.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEE7GM/Dul8WSWn72odQ1nEo4DFCIUFAlpPnToACgkQQ1nEo4DF
CIVpBwf9Es+Vpb5d7Ta0un7b1HVVpJt0hZuKIWcZkCjp3ClXwSNRYTYgvWbwWixS
1fIxH9KX7vWGqh5r8pbZYOtTFr4thq0RynHN6lyiwIUgkz//vCwSs6Ho13dV9Qng
5YGmzMm0HzLpFac10fYFDQIgmOo/34JuJPhG9WzmNa7p3fVC0B5ICeWe3WzUj2Fc
d26MWrwY8+9LP5nuaZ3nBcaWs1nJjMwpibdwvUP74GCcR8j7IOqMZ0LvoPzF6xpr
hEb/oNvW8HQpMwclyBvBMxbxH74DX5B/fL49R92wkaul7P8uVpIkLYhnVJpHBao6
9bPQz4JTgh9UT2NZfcqPUbhU92Mdxg==
=BSk4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
N�����r��y隊Z)z{.�ﮞ˛���m�)z{.��+�:�{Zr�az�'z��j)h���Ǿ� ޮ�^�ˬz��
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to look for a kernel update...

Daniel Bauer
In reply to this post by Marcus Meissner


Am 05.01.2018 um 16:30 schrieb Marcus Meissner:

> Hi,
>
> While a performance hit will likely be there, it is hard to say how big
> it will be. It really depends on the workload.
>
> Ciao, Marcus
>
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 08:12:19PM -0200, Jones de Andrade wrote:
>> Am I wrong, or does it mean that a performance hit is unavoidable?
>>

My first experiences on a intel-i7-computer:

After updating the kernel and installing "these things" I personally in
general do /not/ note a big decrease in speed of my computer.

The only place I note a difference is in the raw-processing image
editing program in my windows xp within a virtualbox. While win itself
and the program in it start with the same speed as before, loading a
25MB-raw-photo is notably slower. Before it was there immediately after
click, it now appears first pixelated and in a second step appears
sharp, maybe after a quarter or half a second... Also applying
adjustments in this program now has a small delay, very small, but
noticeable while before adjustments appeared immediately.

Of course this does not say much, I did not measure anything, it's just
my feeling, and apart from win in virtual-box the "heaviest" thing I do
is resizing a video from my mobile using ffmpeg. The rest is some
maria-db databases, digikam with large database and thousands and
thousands of images and videos, gimp, internet with many open windows,
some of them loaded with scripts. In all this I don't /feel/ any difference.

As Marcus said it probably depends on the workload and for sure soon
there will appear serious tests, but for me with my common, manual
desktop-use there is no need to be afraid of "tragic" performance loss.

--
Daniel Bauer photographer Basel Barcelona
https://www.patreon.com/danielbauer
http://www.daniel-bauer.com

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to look for a kernel update...

Carlos E. R.-2
On 2018-01-05 17:18, Daniel Bauer wrote:

>
>
> Am 05.01.2018 um 16:30 schrieb Marcus Meissner:
>> Hi,
>>
>> While a performance hit will likely be there, it is hard to say how big
>> it will be. It really depends on the workload.
>>
>> Ciao, Marcus
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 08:12:19PM -0200, Jones de Andrade wrote:
>>> Am I wrong, or does it mean that a performance hit is unavoidable?
>>>
>
> My first experiences on a intel-i7-computer:
>
> After updating the kernel and installing "these things" I personally in
> general do /not/ note a big decrease in speed of my computer.
>
> The only place I note a difference is in the raw-processing image
> editing program in my windows xp within a virtualbox. While win itself
> and the program in it start with the same speed as before, loading a
> 25MB-raw-photo is notably slower. Before it was there immediately after
> click, it now appears first pixelated and in a second step appears
> sharp, maybe after a quarter or half a second... Also applying
> adjustments in this program now has a small delay, very small, but
> noticeable while before adjustments appeared immediately.
>
> Of course this does not say much, I did not measure anything, it's just
> my feeling, and apart from win in virtual-box the "heaviest" thing I do
> is resizing a video from my mobile using ffmpeg. The rest is some
> maria-db databases, digikam with large database and thousands and
> thousands of images and videos, gimp, internet with many open windows,
> some of them loaded with scripts. In all this I don't /feel/ any
> difference.
>
> As Marcus said it probably depends on the workload and for sure soon
> there will appear serious tests, but for me with my common, manual
> desktop-use there is no need to be afraid of "tragic" performance loss.
From what I read, a program that runs within itself is not affected; for
instance, most games. But a program that reads or writes to files,
calling the kernel to do the ops, is affected greatly.


--
Cheers / Saludos,

                Carlos E. R.
                (from 42.2 x86_64 "Malachite" at Telcontar)


signature.asc (188 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: time to pressure Intel for a chip replacement (was Re: Time to look for a kernel update...)

jdd@dodin.org
In reply to this post by Carlos E. R.-2
Le 05/01/2018 à 14:36, Carlos E. R. a écrit :

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> On Friday, 2018-01-05 at 07:41 -0500, Anton Aylward wrote:
>
>> I like the idea of an Open Source chip!
>
> Me too.
>

zdnet also

http://www.zdnet.com/article/why-intel-x86-must-die-our-cloud-centric-future-depends-on-open-source-chips-meltdown

jdd
--
http://dodin.org

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to look for a kernel update...

Mark Hounschell
In reply to this post by Marcus Meissner
On 01/05/2018 10:30 AM, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While a performance hit will likely be there, it is hard to say how big
> it will be. It really depends on the workload.
>
> Ciao, Marcus

I am still unclear. Will all this all affect performance on my new AMD
Ryzen processor?

Thanks
Mark

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to look for a kernel update...

Wol's lists
On 05/01/18 18:07, Mark Hounschell wrote:

> On 01/05/2018 10:30 AM, Marcus Meissner wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> While a performance hit will likely be there, it is hard to say how big
>> it will be. It really depends on the workload.
>>
>> Ciao, Marcus
>
> I am still unclear. Will all this all affect performance on my new AMD
> Ryzen processor?
>
Who knows?

Probably not much.

Expected slowdown is probably about 5%. The Ryzen is immune to exploit
1, so that lessens the hit even further.

The big question is what sort of programs are you running? Do you run
disk-intensive programs? They'll get hit hard. Do you do home banking on
the web? That's a big risk.

It's probably a safe bet that your new Ryzen - even with the performance
hit - will be faster than what it replaces.

At the end of the day, nobody really knows at present. Bear in mind this
wasn't even supposed to become public knowledge until next week, so
everybody's been caught on the hop.

And whatever the hit is, once a working fix is out there, the kernel
devs will be working to reduce it ... :-)

Cheers,
Wol

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: time to pressure Intel for a chip replacement (was Re: Time to look for a kernel update...)

Patrick Shanahan-2
In reply to this post by Carlos E. R.-2
* Carlos E. R. <[hidden email]> [01-05-18 08:35]:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> On Friday, 2018-01-05 at 12:44 +1100, Basil Chupin wrote:
> >On 04/01/18 23:48, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> >>On Wednesday, 2018-01-03 at 23:48 +0100, Yamaban wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >>>Root cause is a 'accelerated' branch pre-execution, in other words,
> >>>they dropped the security checks to gain speed.
> >>
> >>Yes, that part I found out.
> >>
> >>Intentionally? They forgot? Ineptitude?
> >>Did they really think they would not be found out?
> >>Sigh :-(
> >
> >But..but...it's taken some 20-odd years to be "found out"! :-)
>
> Riiiight.
>
> So... Really trust business and market forces to do the right thing?

yes, really.  wasn't it you that commented on one of the intel exec's
selling stock ahead of anticipated price drop?  market force in action,
prompting illegal activity to avoid monitary loss.

--
(paka)Patrick Shanahan       Plainfield, Indiana, USA          @ptilopteri
http://en.opensuse.org    openSUSE Community Member    facebook/ptilopteri
Registered Linux User #207535                    @ http://linuxcounter.net
Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo                    paka @ IRCnet freenode

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: time to pressure Intel for a chip replacement (was Re: Time to look for a kernel update...)

Per Jessen
In reply to this post by Carlos E. R.-2
Carlos E. R. wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> On Friday, 2018-01-05 at 12:44 +1100, Basil Chupin wrote:
>> On 04/01/18 23:48, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 2018-01-03 at 23:48 +0100, Yamaban wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>> Root cause is a 'accelerated' branch pre-execution, in other words,
>>>> they dropped the security checks to gain speed.
>>>
>>> Yes, that part I found out.
>>>
>>> Intentionally? They forgot? Ineptitude?
>>> Did they really think they would not be found out?
>>> Sigh :-(
>>
>> But..but...it's taken some 20-odd years to be "found out"! :-)
>
> Riiiight.
>
> So... Really trust business and market forces to do the right thing?

Define the "right thing".



--
Per Jessen, Zürich (9.6°C)
http://www.hostsuisse.com/ - dedicated server rental in Switzerland.


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: time to pressure Intel for a chip replacement (was Re: Time to look for a kernel update...)

James Knott
On 01/05/2018 02:42 PM, Per Jessen wrote:
>> So... Really trust business and market forces to do the right thing?
> Define the "right thing".

There are a lot of people who want deregulation of business, because it
gets in the way of making more money and they insist business will be
good and do the "right thing" without regulations.  They ignore the fact
that it's contrary to what history shows in that very often business
will do what's right for that business, without regard for harm to
others.  It's even got to the point where execs are doing what's good
for them, regardless of damage they cause to the company they work for.
It all boils down to blatant greed at the top.  Trump, with his recent
changes, will only make a very bad situation worse.


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to look for a kernel update...

Lew Wolfgang
In reply to this post by Mark Hounschell
On 01/05/2018 10:07 AM, Mark Hounschell wrote:

> On 01/05/2018 10:30 AM, Marcus Meissner wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> While a performance hit will likely be there, it is hard to say how big
>> it will be. It really depends on the workload.
>>
>> Ciao, Marcus
>
> I am still unclear. Will all this all affect performance on my new AMD Ryzen
> processor?

How has your Ryzen been working for you, Mark?  I've been thinking
of replacing my 10-year old HP desktop containing  an Intel Core(TM)2
Quad CPU.  I've used bunches of Opterons in decades past and wouldn't
mind ditching Intel again.  Are you running 42.3 on it?  Any problems?

Regards,
Lew


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: time to pressure Intel for a chip replacement (was Re: Time to look for a kernel update...)

Carlos E. R.-2
In reply to this post by James Knott
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On Friday, 2018-01-05 at 15:16 -0500, James Knott wrote:

> On 01/05/2018 02:42 PM, Per Jessen wrote:
>>> So... Really trust business and market forces to do the right thing?
>> Define the "right thing".
>
> There are a lot of people who want deregulation of business, because it
> gets in the way of making more money and they insist business will be
> good and do the "right thing" without regulations.  They ignore the fact
> that it's contrary to what history shows in that very often business
> will do what's right for that business, without regard for harm to
> others.  It's even got to the point where execs are doing what's good
> for them, regardless of damage they cause to the company they work for.
> It all boils down to blatant greed at the top.  Trump, with his recent
> changes, will only make a very bad situation worse.

My thoughts exactly :-)


It is rip time for open source chips. It will be a good thing if Intel dies.

- --
Cheers,
        Carlos E. R.
        (from openSUSE 42.2 x86_64 "Malachite" at Telcontar)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlpP6igACgkQtTMYHG2NR9WGIACeKsiS0ofurS54j3CFdzLoly0y
5pUAnR9EfAL0jVWXSKXdw3VwFejuM1+b
=Ua5I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to look for a kernel update...

Wol's lists
In reply to this post by Lew Wolfgang
On 05/01/18 20:53, Lew Wolfgang wrote:
> How has your Ryzen been working for you, Mark?  I've been thinking
> of replacing my 10-year old HP desktop containing  an Intel Core(TM)2
> Quad CPU.  I've used bunches of Opterons in decades past and wouldn't
> mind ditching Intel again.  Are you running 42.3 on it?  Any problems?

I'm building a new Ryzen system for myself. At the moment, it won't
POST, and I don't have time to debug it :-( My current system is an
Athlon X-III.

I've bought myself a Ryzen-3. Something I was unaware of (but it
probably wouldn't make difference) is that AMD's numbering system is now
similar to Intel's - a Ryzen-3 is like an i3, Ryzen-5 to i5, and Ryzen-7
to i7.

And 3 is a basic cpu, 5 is a hefty desktop cpu if you use your system
for rather more than just the simple things, and 7 is high-end gaming,
video-processing etc. Sounds like I should have gone for a Ryzen-5, but
they cost a lot more money ... maybe I'll upgrade sometime ...

Cheers,
Wol

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to look for a kernel update...

Christopher Myers-2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Wow, that's a lot of processors.... From https://security-center.intel.
com/advisory.aspx?intelid=INTEL-SA-00088&languageid=en-fr




The following Intel-based platforms are impacted by this issue. Intel
may modify this list at a later time. Please check with your system
vendor or equipment manufacturer for more information regarding updates
for your system.

    Intel® Core™ i3 processor (45nm and 32nm)
    Intel® Core™ i5 processor (45nm and 32nm)
    Intel® Core™ i7 processor (45nm and 32nm)
    Intel® Core™ M processor family (45nm and 32nm)
    2nd generation Intel® Core™ processors
    3rd generation Intel® Core™ processors
    4th generation Intel® Core™ processors
    5th generation Intel® Core™ processors
    6th generation Intel® Core™ processors
    7th generation Intel® Core™ processors
    8th generation Intel® Core™ processors
    Intel® Core™ X-series Processor Family for Intel® X99 platforms
    Intel® Core™ X-series Processor Family for Intel® X299 platforms
    Intel® Xeon® processor 3400 series
    Intel® Xeon® processor 3600 series
    Intel® Xeon® processor 5500 series
    Intel® Xeon® processor 5600 series
    Intel® Xeon® processor 6500 series
    Intel® Xeon® processor 7500 series
    Intel® Xeon® Processor E3 Family
    Intel® Xeon® Processor E3 v2 Family
    Intel® Xeon® Processor E3 v3 Family
    Intel® Xeon® Processor E3 v4 Family
    Intel® Xeon® Processor E3 v5 Family
    Intel® Xeon® Processor E3 v6 Family
    Intel® Xeon® Processor E5 Family
    Intel® Xeon® Processor E5 v2 Family
    Intel® Xeon® Processor E5 v3 Family
    Intel® Xeon® Processor E5 v4 Family
    Intel® Xeon® Processor E7 Family
    Intel® Xeon® Processor E7 v2 Family
    Intel® Xeon® Processor E7 v3 Family
    Intel® Xeon® Processor E7 v4 Family
    Intel® Xeon® Processor Scalable Family
    Intel® Xeon Phi™ Processor 3200, 5200, 7200 Series
    Intel® Atom™ Processor C Series
    Intel® Atom™ Processor E Series
    Intel® Atom™ Processor A Series
    Intel® Atom™ Processor x3 Series
    Intel® Atom™ Processor Z Series
    Intel® Celeron® Processor J Series
    Intel® Celeron® Processor N Series
    Intel® Pentium® Processor J Series
    Intel® Pentium® Processor N Series
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEE7GM/Dul8WSWn72odQ1nEo4DFCIUFAlpP6zAACgkQQ1nEo4DF
CIUgAggAmvnxTdroXWRcxrZOUcTF3k6qYR+AZ7Pn+ZsvbouMFy4gcyLyF/GjHntn
mG5iYmn14eWozWt7AB2IKOzbQHngn6El9SKox/M9+ir0lcdQHwWLeLDNfjRrNOXL
oIzh8REkpotaxmGA6MDry+k0L88a8iBT5mvJ+47kcGGRnPOPt9hP7wJG0EqKyySh
gyfJIR+d74Zed/gIKiy141lidPRJLffwtKOLDJrwswVsxGAEUPWsF3wLYSBzwSt/
WyUOlHT65RylWqIDOK+CEu48o5YPYDziIMbNiMMv5XV/Vb71UKCLS6+hrBxkE1er
3+bcfz4yUc/nC70RrMAaIOpNIprgPA==
=AjuN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
N�����r��y隊Z)z{.�ﮞ˛���m�)z{.��+�:�{Zr�az�'z��j)h���Ǿ� ޮ�^�ˬz��
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to look for a kernel update...

Mark Hounschell
In reply to this post by Lew Wolfgang
On 01/05/2018 03:53 PM, Lew Wolfgang wrote:

> On 01/05/2018 10:07 AM, Mark Hounschell wrote:
>> On 01/05/2018 10:30 AM, Marcus Meissner wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> While a performance hit will likely be there, it is hard to say how big
>>> it will be. It really depends on the workload.
>>>
>>> Ciao, Marcus
>>
>> I am still unclear. Will all this all affect performance on my new AMD
>> Ryzen processor?
>
> How has your Ryzen been working for you, Mark?  I've been thinking
> of replacing my 10-year old HP desktop containing  an Intel Core(TM)2
> Quad CPU.  I've used bunches of Opterons in decades past and wouldn't
> mind ditching Intel again.  Are you running 42.3 on it?  Any problems?
>

I am running 42.3 on it. There were some install issues. Simple to get
around.
Be sure to disable the IOMMU in the bios, then mem=4096M on the kernel
command line at install time. The dist 4.4 kernel has IOMMU bugs in it and
most hardware (at least all I've used) can do DAC properly so if ya
don't limit your mem to < 4GB you will have issues.

Once installed and updated you "should" be able to turn the IOMMU back
on and get rid of the mem=4096M cmdline option. I can't say that for
sure because I don't run the DIST kernels. I run the latest from
kernel.org. I just don't know if the latest SuSE kernel has the IOMMU
fixes in it or not. You will need an IOMMU if running 4GB+ memory.

Be warned about the Ryzens though. There is a hardware "segfault" issue
they discovered by doing something like building a kernel with "make
-j16". I got mine back in Nov and had to RMA it. They sent me a new one
fairly quick because they KNEW about the issue. Date codes after week 21
of 2017 should be good to go. Other than that I'm really happy with it.
It is a AMD Ryzen 7 1700X.

Mark



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: time to pressure Intel for a chip replacement (was Re: Time to look for a kernel update...)

Basil Chupin-2
In reply to this post by John Andersen-2
On 05/01/18 13:42, John Andersen wrote:
> On 01/04/2018 05:44 PM, Basil Chupin wrote:
>> But..but...it's taken some 20-odd years to be "found out"! :-)
> As far as YOU know!

True. And as moi k-n-o-w-s n-u-t-h-i-n', moi can only go on the year
1995 mentioned in this list :-)


BC

--
Always be nice to people on your way up -- you'll see
the same people on your way down.


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: time to pressure Intel for a chip replacement (was Re: Time to look for a kernel update...)

Basil Chupin-2
In reply to this post by Carlos E. R.-2
On 06/01/18 00:32, Carlos E. R. wrote:

>
>
> On Friday, 2018-01-05 at 12:44 +1100, Basil Chupin wrote:
> > On 04/01/18 23:48, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, 2018-01-03 at 23:48 +0100, Yamaban wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >>> Root cause is a 'accelerated' branch pre-execution, in other words,
> >>> they dropped the security checks to gain speed.
> >>
> >> Yes, that part I found out.
> >>
> >> Intentionally? They forgot? Ineptitude?
> >> Did they really think they would not be found out?
> >> Sigh :-(
>
> > But..but...it's taken some 20-odd years to be "found out"! :-)
>
> Riiiight.
>
> So... Really trust business and market forces to do the right thing?

I was simply responding to what you wrote/asked in your last paragraph.
But now I realise that I should have been less obtuse in what I wrote
and should have written, "Yes, they did and they got away with it for
20-odd years."

BC


--
Always be nice to people on your way up -- you'll see
the same people on your way down.


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to look for a kernel update...

Basil Chupin-2
In reply to this post by Mark Hounschell
On 06/01/18 05:07, Mark Hounschell wrote:

> On 01/05/2018 10:30 AM, Marcus Meissner wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> While a performance hit will likely be there, it is hard to say how big
>> it will be. It really depends on the workload.
>>
>> Ciao, Marcus
>
> I am still unclear. Will all this all affect performance on my new AMD
> Ryzen processor?
>
> Thanks
> Mark
>

I'm with you.  I have the FX-8150 cpu and am totally confused if the
ucode-amd which was installed this morning (in TW) is necessary for my
AMD cpu.


BC


--
Always be nice to people on your way up -- you'll see
the same people on your way down.



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: time to pressure Intel for a chip replacement (was Re: Time to look for a kernel update...)

Per Jessen
In reply to this post by James Knott
James Knott wrote:

> On 01/05/2018 02:42 PM, Per Jessen wrote:
>>> So... Really trust business and market forces to do the right thing?
>> Define the "right thing".
>
> There are a lot of people who want deregulation of business, because
> it gets in the way of making more money and they insist business will
> be good and do the "right thing" without regulations.  They ignore the
> fact that it's contrary to what history shows in that very often
> business will do what's right for that business, without regard for
> harm to others.  It's even got to the point where execs are doing
> what's good for them, regardless of damage they cause to the company
> they work for. It all boils down to blatant greed at the top.  Trump,
> with his recent changes, will only make a very bad situation worse.

Oh I agree - I just wanted to point out that the "right thing" isn't
always easy to determine or agree on.  Anyway, off-topic stuff.



--
Per Jessen, Zürich (3.9°C)
http://www.cloudsuisse.com/ - your owncloud, hosted in Switzerland.


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to look for a kernel update...

Mark Hounschell-2
In reply to this post by Basil Chupin-2
On 01/04/2018 01:55 AM, Basil Chupin wrote:

> On 04/01/18 10:34, Marcus Meissner wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The advisories have just been published by the researchers.
>>
>> http://meltdownattack.com/ / https://spectreattack.com/
>>
>> SUSE has been aware of these problems and we are in the process
>> of preparing and soon releasing fixes.
>>
>> Ciao, Marcus
>
> My take on this is that nobody with a Nvidia GPU will be installing the
> new kernel -- assuming that the 'fix' will be in the form of a new
> kernel -- until the problem with compiling the nIvidia driver under the
>> = 4.14.11 version is resolved.
>
> BC
>

This is all it takes to build on 4.14 kernels:

int __init nv_drm_init(
     struct pci_driver *pci_driver
)
{
     int ret = 0;
#if defined(NV_DRM_AVAILABLE)
#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE < KERNEL_VERSION(4, 14, 0)
     ret = drm_pci_init(&nv_drm_driver, pci_driver);
#else
     ret = drm_legacy_pci_init(&nv_drm_driver, pci_driver);
#endif
#endif
     return ret;
}

void nv_drm_exit(
     struct pci_driver *pci_driver
)
{
#if defined(NV_DRM_AVAILABLE)
#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE < KERNEL_VERSION(4, 14, 0)
     drm_pci_exit(&nv_drm_driver, pci_driver);
#else
     drm_legacy_pci_exit(&nv_drm_driver, pci_driver);
#endif
#endif
}

Mark

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

12345