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: chip sniffing - are single core cpus affected?

gregfreemyer
On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Per Jessen <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, 2018-01-03 at 14:05 -0500, David T-G wrote:
> >
> >> Carlos, et al --
> >>
> >> ...and then Carlos E. R. said...
> >> %
> >> ...
> >> % Any method to know if /my/ processor is affected? It was bought
> >> several % years ago. A list of exact processor models for looking in
> >> % /proc/cpuinfo, perhaps.
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> That certainly would be a nice twist.  Suddenly all of those old
> >> chips out there run faster than the fancy new whiz-bangs just because
> >> they don't need the super-secure kernel shuffling :-)
> >
> >
> > Now I wonder if single core CPUs are affected.
> >
> > This issue is related to paralelization optimizations. Thus I wonder
> > whether a machine that doesn't paralelize is affected.
>
> Jump prediction in the pipeline is not related to the number of cores.
>
> > I also wonder if a virtual machine that is given a single core of a
> > multi-core CPU is affected.
>
> Yes it is.

The cloud VM providers like AWS were very involved in writing the
patchset.  Based on their major involvement, they may be even more
vulnerable than the bare metal servers.

Greg

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: chip sniffing - are single core cpus affected?

Carlos E. R.-2
In reply to this post by gregfreemyer
On 2018-01-08 01:31, Greg Freemyer wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 2:40 PM, Carlos E. R.
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 2018-01-07 20:22, Per Jessen wrote:
>>> Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>
>>>> Now I wonder if single core CPUs are affected.
>>>>
>>>> This issue is related to paralelization optimizations. Thus I wonder
>>>> whether a machine that doesn't paralelize is affected.
>>>
>>> Jump prediction in the pipeline is not related to the number of cores.
>>
>> Well, it can preload in advance the pipeline. But it can not compute the
>> alternatives; it has to wait till it evaluates the condition, then
>> compute a single one, the correct one, that is hopefully already loaded
>> in the pipeline.
>>
>> With a cpu that can do parallelization in hardware, both tracks can
>> start to compute before reaching the branch; then one is discarded.
>>
>> That's from reading
>> <https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/why-raspberry-pi-isnt-vulnerable-to-spectre-or-meltdown/>
>
> Carlos,
>
> You fundamentally misunderstand the raspberrypi article.
>
> The parallelism it describes is within a single superscalar core.
> Thus, a modern Intel "core" has internal parallelism as described in
> the article.
AH! Yes, of course. Obviously. I see. :-)

--
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: chip sniffing - are single core cpus affected?

Jeffrey L. Taylor-2
In reply to this post by gregfreemyer
Quoting Greg Freemyer <[hidden email]>:

> On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Per Jessen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Carlos E. R. wrote:
> >
> > > On Wednesday, 2018-01-03 at 14:05 -0500, David T-G wrote:
> > >
> > >> Carlos, et al --
> > >>
> > >> ...and then Carlos E. R. said...
> > >> %
> > >> ...
> > >> % Any method to know if /my/ processor is affected? It was bought
> > >> several % years ago. A list of exact processor models for looking in
> > >> % /proc/cpuinfo, perhaps.
> > >> [snip]
> > >>
> > >> That certainly would be a nice twist.  Suddenly all of those old
> > >> chips out there run faster than the fancy new whiz-bangs just because
> > >> they don't need the super-secure kernel shuffling :-)
> > >
> > >
> > > Now I wonder if single core CPUs are affected.
> > >
> > > This issue is related to paralelization optimizations. Thus I wonder
> > > whether a machine that doesn't paralelize is affected.
> >
> > Jump prediction in the pipeline is not related to the number of cores.
> >
> > > I also wonder if a virtual machine that is given a single core of a
> > > multi-core CPU is affected.
> >
> > Yes it is.
>
> The cloud VM providers like AWS were very involved in writing the
> patchset.  Based on their major involvement, they may be even more
> vulnerable than the bare metal servers.
>
> Greg
>

I expect that virtual machines switch context even more often than the typical
personal computer.  Depending on how much of the VM runs in the kernel space,
file I/O may take twice as many context switches.  Many VM are running file
and database heavy tasks.  One benchmark of the patch performance hit used a
relational database join, a common task, especially for applications like
Rails that use a relational database for object-oriented data structures.  And
this applications are running much nearer capacity so performance hits reduce
capacity and increase latency.  On most personal computers, the performance
reduces idle time and responsiveness (i.e., low latency).

Just my .02USD,
  Jeffrey

--
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...)

Larry Stotler
In reply to this post by James Knott
On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 4:33 PM, James Knott <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The big problem in the U.S. are those who are absolutely against
> anything that helps those who need help.

The problem isn't so much as helping those who need it, it's about
separating those who truly need help from the moochers.  There are
many in the US that will take a handout even if they don't deserve it
and then do nothing to help cover it.  At some point, you have to have
people paying into the system to take care of those who aren't.  The
more you add to the dole, the less you have contributing.

Further, the people in charge make it harder for everyone else by
creating an artificial lower level standard.  Who should a residence
be required to be a certain size if someone would be just as happy
with half that and is living well?  150 years ago, people didn't have
power, running water, etc, but now those trying to live small and off
the grid are considered wrong.

--
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 01/07/2018 10:17 PM, Larry Stotler wrote:
> The problem isn't so much as helping those who need it, it's about
> separating those who truly need help from the moochers.  There are
> many in the US that will take a handout even if they don't deserve it
> and then do nothing to help cover it.

That describes some at the top too.


--
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...)

Larry Stotler
In reply to this post by Wol's lists
On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Wol's lists <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The insurance companies can negotiate big discounts, but for those people
> who can't afford insurance they have to pay list price, which can easily be
> several times what the insurance companies charge. As always, those who can
> least afford it, have to pay most ...

Yep.  Providers that accept insurance are told what they can charge
and have to wait to get the payment.  While those who would prefer to
pay cash are charged more even though they can pay today.  The
insurance companies negotiate things this way to discourage providers
from taking cash payments.  It's rather retarded.  Then again, M$ was
allowed to charge for a copy of DOS and then DOS/Win for every
computer you sold regardless of whether it went out the door with it
or whether it was wanted.  Money makes the rules.  Not just here, but
everywhere.

--
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 Larry Stotler
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On Sunday, 2018-01-07 at 22:17 -0500, Larry Stotler wrote:

> Further, the people in charge make it harder for everyone else by
> creating an artificial lower level standard.  Who should a residence
> be required to be a certain size if someone would be just as happy
> with half that and is living well?

Because if not, some builders try to build smaller and charge the same or
more. And because those that are under some obligation (for whatever
reason) to provide lodgings try to make do with smaller and cheaper.

But this is offtopic.

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

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

iEYEARECAAYFAlpS6JUACgkQtTMYHG2NR9WEAgCbBL5XSJMeeWrsaWCm+aOWdlFP
rh0An1a8l2/CNwsRJdGNToCD3UTS7/HF
=dfNq
-----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 pressure Intel for a chip replacement (was Re: Time to look for a kernel update...)

David C. Rankin
In reply to this post by Carlos E. R.-2
On 01/05/2018 07:30 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> They claim it is unrelated, because the sale was planned before.

You bought that BS, hook-line-and-sinker. Never trust a marketing statement by
Intel.

After Google informed Intel of the problem, Brian Krzanich put in place a
planned divestiture program time to liquidate the shares BEFORE new of the
flaw was scheduled to be released to the public. That's how insider-schemes
generally work.

To wade through the BS that is put out, you have to read more that what Intel
puts out on Page1 -- you actually have to take the time to read what is on
Page2 to get to the truth of the matter. (It would be a clear case of fraud if
a used-car salesman did it that way, but press-releases by Intel aren't
subject to the same penalty (that's a shame...)

A good page two in this case is:
http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-ceo-krzanich-sold-shares-after-company-was-informed-of-chip-flaw-2018-1

In this day of lying politicians, and abjectly false information being spread,
it is up to all of us as thinking individuals to always make sure we read page
2 :)

--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.


signature.asc (484 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

David C. Rankin
In reply to this post by Daniel Bauer
On 01/05/2018 10:18 AM, Daniel Bauer wrote:

> 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.

Just be glad you are not google or amazon or the like that purchased 4000
16/32 core servers to handle the load (based on pre-Meltdown) processor
capability (as well as determining the number of routers, patch panels, etc.)

No you are a big data company and find out you cannot support your current
customer base because you have just been told all of the data you built your
hardware requirements from were 30% inflated and, now that after the failed
speculative execution reload fix, the additional registers and needed
instructions for cleansing the processor cache data will leave you with a
system that is too-small by 1/3 to meet your business needs. Them's the ones
that are going to feel the impact the most.

For you, and just about every other desktop user where your system runs at .02
- .05 utilization, you probably won't notice much. Now gamers that make a
bizillion system calls per-second will be much more likely to seem scenery drag.

It will be interesting to see where the impact is felt the most.

--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.

--
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

Anton Aylward-2
In reply to this post by Markus Koßmann-3
On 07/01/18 01:38 PM, Markus Koßmann wrote:
> There is the OpenRisc Project ( https://openrisc.io/) .

This, and other links such as those I mentioned in a previous email, are very
frustrating.
Flashbacks to Swift and Gulliver: all about designs and simulations, but where
can I get the real silicon and real microATX mobo for my desktop PC running Linux?

At some point the intellectual exercises become self-indulgent and unproductive.
(There's a word beginning with 'M' that describes that when its associated with
sex, but I think that's a trivial point.)


Read: standardization; commercialism, consumerism.
Right now we have a wave of "I hate Intel" going on and there's a wonderful
marketing opportunity for Linux provided its not on Intel/AMD but *IS* packaged
like a regular desktop/mobo and supported the way Ubuntu/Suse/Redhat... are with
repositories, office, games ... and a neat GUI admin tool like YAST.

The window of opportunity is closing.
A month from not many people will be saying "Oh, I have that patched" and "oh, I
haven't been affected...".   There won't be the interest or incentive.

Just watch this list; a month from not what will we be discussing?  A month from
not what will the media be discussing?



--
         A: Yes.
     >   Q: Are you sure?
     >>  A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
     >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?


--
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

Carlos E. R.-2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On Monday, 2018-01-08 at 05:44 -0500, Anton Aylward wrote:

> On 07/01/18 01:38 PM, Markus Koßmann wrote:
>> There is the OpenRisc Project ( https://openrisc.io/) .
>
> This, and other links such as those I mentioned in a previous email, are very
> frustrating.
> Flashbacks to Swift and Gulliver: all about designs and simulations, but where
> can I get the real silicon and real microATX mobo for my desktop PC running Linux?
>
> At some point the intellectual exercises become self-indulgent and unproductive.
> (There's a word beginning with 'M' that describes that when its associated with
> sex, but I think that's a trivial point.)
>
>
> Read: standardization; commercialism, consumerism.
> Right now we have a wave of "I hate Intel" going on and there's a wonderful
> marketing opportunity for Linux provided its not on Intel/AMD but *IS* packaged
> like a regular desktop/mobo and supported the way Ubuntu/Suse/Redhat... are with
> repositories, office, games ... and a neat GUI admin tool like YAST.
>
> The window of opportunity is closing.
> A month from not many people will be saying "Oh, I have that patched" and "oh, I
> haven't been affected...".   There won't be the interest or incentive.
>
> Just watch this list; a month from not what will we be discussing?  A month from
> not what will the media be discussing?

It needs big players to build silicon.

Like those having huge computer farms that now run slower, so that they
have to buy more hardware to cope. Are they pushing for a new processor
design?


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

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

iEYEARECAAYFAlpTec4ACgkQtTMYHG2NR9XKRgCgksC9RG5S9sMaGbnIJyqCjSoW
/esAoI+tz2GUC5UKvC/k8+W3mvDWesKh
=+aQp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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 David C. Rankin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



(let's take this to the OT list)

On Monday, 2018-01-08 at 04:03 -0600, David C. Rankin wrote:

> On 01/05/2018 07:30 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> They claim it is unrelated, because the sale was planned before.
>
> You bought that BS, hook-line-and-sinker. Never trust a marketing statement by
> Intel.

No, I did not buy it. I simply wondered. Maybe somebody knew something
else that could break their claim. So I asked, I commented.

> After Google informed Intel of the problem, Brian Krzanich put in place a
> planned divestiture program time to liquidate the shares BEFORE new of the
> flaw was scheduled to be released to the public. That's how insider-schemes
> generally work.
>
> To wade through the BS that is put out, you have to read more that what Intel
> puts out on Page1 -- you actually have to take the time to read what is on
> Page2 to get to the truth of the matter. (It would be a clear case of fraud if
> a used-car salesman did it that way, but press-releases by Intel aren't
> subject to the same penalty (that's a shame...)
>
> A good page two in this case is:
> http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-ceo-krzanich-sold-shares-after-company-was-informed-of-chip-flaw-2018-1
>
> In this day of lying politicians, and abjectly false information being spread,
> it is up to all of us as thinking individuals to always make sure we read page
> 2 :)
>
>

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

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

iEYEARECAAYFAlpTeowACgkQtTMYHG2NR9UqjwCfR9grX6SPnb/jbO9DmaXliovy
1WoAn0/2axQO0Rx9NqW5KfmJHElYg7og
=PDUK
-----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...

Carlos E. R.-2
In reply to this post by David C. Rankin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On Monday, 2018-01-08 at 04:15 -0600, David C. Rankin wrote:

> On 01/05/2018 10:18 AM, Daniel Bauer wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Just be glad you are not google or amazon or the like that purchased 4000
> 16/32 core servers to handle the load (based on pre-Meltdown) processor
> capability (as well as determining the number of routers, patch panels, etc.)
>
> No you are a big data company and find out you cannot support your current
> customer base because you have just been told all of the data you built your
> hardware requirements from were 30% inflated and, now that after the failed
> speculative execution reload fix, the additional registers and needed
> instructions for cleansing the processor cache data will leave you with a
> system that is too-small by 1/3 to meet your business needs. Them's the ones
> that are going to feel the impact the most.
>
> For you, and just about every other desktop user where your system runs at .02
> - .05 utilization, you probably won't notice much. Now gamers that make a
> bizillion system calls per-second will be much more likely to seem scenery drag.

Not gamers.

Most games run internally, not doing system calls. They handle video
directly, no?

>
> It will be interesting to see where the impact is felt the most.
>
>

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

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

iEYEARECAAYFAlpTexgACgkQtTMYHG2NR9VDdQCeOih1kbdINOJlxJiY7RBCPJ+4
SY8AnRPcLtOKPf+6WC9IMT+n1hu0hcox
=LNVa
-----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 pressure Intel for a chip replacement

Dave Howorth-3
In reply to this post by Anton Aylward-2
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 05:44:59 -0500
Anton Aylward <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 07/01/18 01:38 PM, Markus Koßmann wrote:
> > There is the OpenRisc Project ( https://openrisc.io/) .  
>
> This, and other links such as those I mentioned in a previous email,
> are very frustrating.
> Flashbacks to Swift and Gulliver: all about designs and simulations,
> but where can I get the real silicon and real microATX mobo for my
> desktop PC running Linux?

Well there is silicon available for the RISC-V architecture I mentioned
before, and projects to run Debian are under way. gcc is ported, kernel
et al are in progress.

https://blog.hackster.io/building-open-hardware-with-risc-v-silicon-39c8348bec75

https://www.electronicsweekly.com/blogs/engineer-in-wonderland/risc-v-silicon-available-pcbs-2017-04/

https://www.designnews.com/content/linux-now-has-its-first-open-source-risc-v-processor/71646867257598

https://wiki.debian.org/RISC-V

--
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

Anton Aylward-2
On 08/01/18 09:57 AM, Dave Howorth wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 05:44:59 -0500
> Anton Aylward <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 07/01/18 01:38 PM, Markus Koßmann wrote:
>>> There is the OpenRisc Project ( https://openrisc.io/) .  
>>
>> This, and other links such as those I mentioned in a previous email,
>> are very frustrating.
>> Flashbacks to Swift and Gulliver: all about designs and simulations,
>> but where can I get the real silicon and real microATX mobo for my
>> desktop PC running Linux?
>
> Well there is silicon available for the RISC-V architecture I mentioned
> before, and projects to run Debian are under way. gcc is ported, kernel
> et al are in progress.
>
> https://blog.hackster.io/building-open-hardware-with-risc-v-silicon-39c8348bec75
>
> https://www.electronicsweekly.com/blogs/engineer-in-wonderland/risc-v-silicon-available-pcbs-2017-04/
>
> https://www.designnews.com/content/linux-now-has-its-first-open-source-risc-v-processor/71646867257598
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/RISC-V

The developments, and the speed at which it runs, are a long way removed from
what I was asking for.  A year?  Fiver years?  A Decade?  Right now there's the
pressure.

As I said:

<quote>
Right now we have a wave of "I hate Intel" going on and there's a wonderful
marketing opportunity for Linux provided its not on Intel/AMD but *IS* packaged
like a regular desktop/mobo and supported the way Ubuntu/Suse/Redhat... are with
repositories, office, games ... and a neat GUI admin tool like YAST.

The window of opportunity is closing.
A month from not many people will be saying "Oh, I have that patched" and "oh, I
haven't been affected...".   There won't be the interest or incentive.
</quote>

There is an opportunity for Linux to take over, displace the Intel/Microsoft
monopoly.  But that's not going to happen with development boards that run one
tenth the speed of current CPUs.  A fabulous instruction set and great, "mature"
compilers isn't going to displace Intel.

Now if those chips fitted AM2+, AM3/3+, AM4 LGA-H/H2, FM2/2+, the various server
sockets ...

Yes, replacement would require some technical dexterity, but for new product
there's a host of existing motherboards already in existence & production just
waiting to be filled and shipped

As I said, there's ta window of opportunity for Linux to take over.
It won't happen with a development board.




--
         A: Yes.
     >   Q: Are you sure?
     >>  A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
     >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?


--
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...

David Haller-4
In reply to this post by Carlos E. R.-2
Hello,

On Mon, 08 Jan 2018, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>Most games run internally, not doing system calls. They handle video
>directly, no?

You've never done a 'strace' on any game then... How do you suppose
games get stuff from internal data to the libs (mostly libGL) and then
to the X driver (Mesa, AMD/NVIDIA drivers) and then to the
kernel(sic!) module(s) and via that to the GPU...

-dnh

--
>Blame directed at the wrong vendor tends to get reclassified as whining.
No worries, I'm good at that too.   -- Chris Hacking and Jay Mottern

--
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

Dave Howorth-3
In reply to this post by Anton Aylward-2
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 11:04:51 -0500
Anton Aylward <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 08/01/18 09:57 AM, Dave Howorth wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 05:44:59 -0500
> > Anton Aylward <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >  
> >> On 07/01/18 01:38 PM, Markus Koßmann wrote:  
> >>> There is the OpenRisc Project ( https://openrisc.io/) .    
> >>
> >> This, and other links such as those I mentioned in a previous
> >> email, are very frustrating.
> >> Flashbacks to Swift and Gulliver: all about designs and
> >> simulations, but where can I get the real silicon and real
> >> microATX mobo for my desktop PC running Linux?  
> >
> > Well there is silicon available for the RISC-V architecture I
> > mentioned before, and projects to run Debian are under way. gcc is
> > ported, kernel et al are in progress.
> >
> > https://blog.hackster.io/building-open-hardware-with-risc-v-silicon-39c8348bec75
> >
> > https://www.electronicsweekly.com/blogs/engineer-in-wonderland/risc-v-silicon-available-pcbs-2017-04/
> >
> > https://www.designnews.com/content/linux-now-has-its-first-open-source-risc-v-processor/71646867257598
> >
> > https://wiki.debian.org/RISC-V 
>
> The developments, and the speed at which it runs, are a long way
> removed from what I was asking for.  A year?  Fiver years?  A
> Decade?  Right now there's the pressure.

Well, there's more available than anybody else has suggested for any
other project, AIUI, so I'm not apologetic for mentioning it.

> As I said:
>
> <quote>
> Right now we have a wave of "I hate Intel" going on and there's a
> wonderful marketing opportunity for Linux provided its not on
> Intel/AMD but *IS* packaged like a regular desktop/mobo and supported
> the way Ubuntu/Suse/Redhat... are with repositories, office,
> games ... and a neat GUI admin tool like YAST.
>
> The window of opportunity is closing.
> A month from not many people will be saying "Oh, I have that patched"
> and "oh, I haven't been affected...".   There won't be the interest
> or incentive. </quote>
>
> There is an opportunity for Linux to take over, displace the
> Intel/Microsoft monopoly.  But that's not going to happen with
> development boards that run one tenth the speed of current CPUs.  A
> fabulous instruction set and great, "mature" compilers isn't going to
> displace Intel.
>
> Now if those chips fitted AM2+, AM3/3+, AM4 LGA-H/H2, FM2/2+, the
> various server sockets ...
>
> Yes, replacement would require some technical dexterity, but for new
> product there's a host of existing motherboards already in existence
> & production just waiting to be filled and shipped
>
> As I said, there's ta window of opportunity for Linux to take over.
> It won't happen with a development board.

Putting up strawmen and then shooting them down is not very productive
at the best of times, let alone in offtopic mails.

--
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
In reply to this post by David Haller-4
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On Monday, 2018-01-08 at 20:55 +0100, David Haller wrote:

> Hello,
>
> On Mon, 08 Jan 2018, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> Most games run internally, not doing system calls. They handle video
>> directly, no?
>
> You've never done a 'strace' on any game then... How do you suppose
> games get stuff from internal data to the libs (mostly libGL) and then
> to the X driver (Mesa, AMD/NVIDIA drivers) and then to the
> kernel(sic!) module(s) and via that to the GPU...

It was written at some of the sites linked these days, that games were not
affected. Maybe proprietary games? Windows games? That the fps would be
the same.

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

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

iEYEARECAAYFAlpUnJwACgkQtTMYHG2NR9VeVgCgjZhO5dtdTi0Ji7wdVXKw5a/w
UugAn0Al7jxrlI1qzc7gF14QcjrnV72j
=RZQE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

12345