If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Intel junk...Kernel-memory-leaking Intel processor design flaw forces Linux, Windows redesign
Roger Blake wrote:
On 2018-01-04, chrisv wrote: Might I say that was an awesome post, sir. His post was sheer idiocy. CO2 is not a pollutant - period. Human caused "climate change/global warming" is junk science at its worst. Idiot |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Intel junk...Kernel-memory-leaking Intel processor design flawforces Linux, Windows redesign
Roger Blake wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
On 2018-01-04, chrisv wrote: Might I say that was an awesome post, sir. His post was sheer idiocy. CO2 is not a pollutant - period. How about you fill your room with CO2 for a couple hours, Roge? rest of head-in-the-sand post snipped -- Q: Why do ducks have big flat feet? A: To stamp out forest fires. Q: Why do elephants have big flat feet? A: To stamp out flaming ducks. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Intel junk...Kernel-memory-leaking Intel processor design flawforces Linux, Windows redesign
Den 2018-01-05 kl. 04:36, skrev Roger Blake:
On 2018-01-04, chrisv wrote: Might I say that was an awesome post, sir. His post was sheer idiocy. CO2 is not a pollutant - period. No, it is a natural part of the atmosphare, but it is a balance. It has to be in the right proportions. To much (and in particual if we continue to burn fosile fuels that ads carbone that was bound millions of years ago) and the climate will be hurt. Human caused "climate change/global warming" is junk science at its worst. Even Reid Bryson, the scientist who was the father of modern climate science, stated that it is "a bunch of hooey." I could probably name the scientist that has the opposite view, but the space in one posting would not be enough. And why pick one that has been dead for 10 years? The views on global warming has changed over the years and a lot has happend the last decade. As I said, I absolutely refuse to reduce my own carbon emissions and in fact continue to see ways to increase them. OK. fine. You'll be sorry and your children will be hurt. But then, if you could reduce your C02 emission, what would be the issue? (Do you dumbass hippies really believe that your stoopid windmills are solar panels are capable of keeping people warm and alive in the deep freeze that so much of the U.S. is currently experiencing?) That weather phenomenon is probably also caused by the disturbed climate caused by the CO2 emissions. So in the case of the current US weather issues, you could say that it is, in a way, self-inflicted. Anyway, you could probably start with more efficient cars, shutting down all AC equipment and so on. This cold is just a temporarily storm and has little to do with the overall climate issues. One can not use the amount of snow on the back garden to judge about the climate at large. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Intel junk...Kernel-memory-leaking Intel processor design flaw forces Linux, Windows redesign
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Roger Blake wrote: chrisv wrote: Might I say that was an awesome post, sir. His post was sheer idiocy. CO2 is not a pollutant - period. How about you fill your room with CO2 for a couple hours, Roge? rest of head-in-the-sand post snipped It was the expected illogical, dishonest attack, from the right-winger. As if there isn't a middle ground between doing nothing at all and (absurdly) depending entirely upon renewable energy. Sheesh. -- "Nevermind if the game is fair or not, it is the winning and the losing that matters, eh?" - Rat |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Intel junk...Kernel-memory-leaking Intel processor design flawforces Linux, Windows redesign
On 2018-01-04 12:44, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2018-01-04, chrisv wrote: This is ugly. Think of the large computing centers, for example Google's data centers. Suddenly, they will need significantly more CPU time, and thus electricity (and thus carbon), to get the job done? Carbon is not a pollutant, except in the "minds" of left-wing loons, When the truth is inconvenient, deny it. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Intel junk...Kernel-memory-leaking Intel processor design flawforces Linux, Windows redesign
On 2018-01-04 15:43, DaveFroble wrote:
chrisv wrote: Designed By India H1B Engineers wrote: Crucially, these updates to both Linux and Windows will incur a performance hit on Intel products. The effects are still being benchmarked, however we're looking at a ballpark figure of five to 30 per cent slow down, depending on the task and the processor model. This is ugly.* Think of the large computing centers, for example Google's data centers.* Suddenly, they will need significantly more CPU time, and thus electricity (and thus carbon), to get the job done? And once all the spanners are tossed into the works, which will slow things down, what happens when new CPUs without the issues are available?* Will computers forever be artificially slowed down? A whole bunch of someones has seriously dropped the ball on this. Protected memory should be just that, protected, with no way to avoid the protection. I presume it's an implementation flaw, not a principle-of-design flaw. So once addressed, it should result in both proper memory protection and increased performance in future cores. Alas (per the article) this can't be addressed with a microcode patch. -- “When it is all said and done, there are approximately 94 million full-time workers in private industry paying taxes to support 102 million non-workers and 21 million government workers. In what world does this represent a strong job market?” ..Jim Quinn |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Intel junk...Kernel-memory-leaking Intel processor design flawforces Linux, Windows redesign
On 2018-01-04 07:56, Designed By India H1B Engineers wrote:
Performance hits loom, other OSes need fixes Stunning. As someone else mentioned the electricity hit alone could be enormous. Not just in data centres but across all intel users. Class action suit against intel I think. This is on the level of the FDIV bug of yore. Worse in some sense. Must be full cigar time at AMD... Curiously Apple claim that their mitigation of this has no measurable effect on one aspect (CVE-2017-5754 or "rogue data cache load" - aka Meltdown) of the flaw (using 3rd party benchmarking s/w); and "only" 2.5% slowdown in one of three benchmarks for the other flaws ( CVE-2017-5753 or "bounds check bypass," and CVE-2017-5715 or "branch target injection."). https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208394 This makes me wonder if the article's claims of 5 - 30% slowdown (post OS fix [Windows, Linux]) are exaggerated or if Apple's fix is either miraculous or incomplete. -- “When it is all said and done, there are approximately 94 million full-time workers in private industry paying taxes to support 102 million non-workers and 21 million government workers. In what world does this represent a strong job market?” ..Jim Quinn |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Intel junk...Kernel-memory-leaking Intel processor design flawforces Linux, Windows redesign
On 2018-01-05 08:59, Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-01-05 08:50, Alan Browne wrote: “When it is all said and done, there are approximately 94 million **full-time workers in private industry paying taxes to support 102 **million non-workers and 21 million government workers. **In what world does this represent a strong job market?” .Jim Quinn The real world. Without consumers, there would be no "job market". Double congratulations are in order Sir. 1) Replying to sigs is very lame, 2) Misunderstanding the fundamental meaning, moreso. -- “When it is all said and done, there are approximately 94 million full-time workers in private industry paying taxes to support 102 million non-workers and 21 million government workers. In what world does this represent a strong job market?” ..Jim Quinn |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Intel junk...Kernel-memory-leaking Intel processor design flawforces Linux, Windows redesign
Peter Khlmann wrote:
Roger Blake wrote: On 2018-01-04, chrisv wrote: Might I say that was an awesome post, sir. His post was sheer idiocy. CO2 is not a pollutant - period. Human caused "climate change/global warming" is junk science at its worst. Idiot Don't feed the troll, opps, I just did ... -- David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: DFE Ultralights, Inc. 170 Grimplin Road Vanderbilt, PA 15486 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Intel junk...Kernel-memory-leaking Intel processor design flawforces Linux, Windows redesign
On 01/05/2018 08:50 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2018-01-04 15:43, DaveFroble wrote: chrisv wrote: Designed By India H1B Engineers wrote: Crucially, these updates to both Linux and Windows will incur a performance hit on Intel products. The effects are still being benchmarked, however we're looking at a ballpark figure of five to 30 per cent slow down, depending on the task and the processor model. This is ugly.* Think of the large computing centers, for example Google's data centers.* Suddenly, they will need significantly more CPU time, and thus electricity (and thus carbon), to get the job done? And once all the spanners are tossed into the works, which will slow things down, what happens when new CPUs without the issues are available?* Will computers forever be artificially slowed down? A whole bunch of someones has seriously dropped the ball on this. Protected memory should be just that, protected, with no way to avoid the protection. I presume it's an implementation flaw, not a principle-of-design flaw. So once addressed, it should result in both proper memory protection and increased performance in future cores.* Alas (per the article) this can't be addressed with a microcode patch. Sounds more like a "principle-of-design" flaw to me. Hard to believe all those different companies all made the same mistake building on a sound design. bill |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Intel junk...Kernel-memory-leaking Intel processor design flawforces Linux, Windows redesign
On 2018-01-04 12:56, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
Den 2018-01-04 kl. 18:44, skrev Roger Blake: Carbon is not a pollutant, except in the "minds" of left-wing loons, so that is not of any importance. (I certainly refuse to lower my carbon output. Environmentalist scum who desire to lower theirs are welcome to stop breathing. However, I digress.) The carbon you breath comes from the food you eat. No problem. But much of the carbon that we let out comes from carbon from millions years ago (fosile fuels). *That* is a major problem. Indeed, we've "unlocked" sequestered carbon. I'm not especially against that - but we've done it in such a recklessly fast (wasteful, inefficient and polluting manner) that the "system" doesn't have time to absorb the damage in a reasonable way. Burning bilological fuels (that grow the last 100 years) is not any problem either. You other statements are purelly childish and uneducated. +1 generally but -10 for attempting to help a hopelessly closed mind. -- When it is all said and done, there are approximately 94 million full-time workers in private industry paying taxes to support 102 million non-workers and 21 million government workers. In what world does this represent a strong job market? ..Jim Quinn |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Intel junk...Kernel-memory-leaking Intel processor design flawforces Linux, Windows redesign
On 2018-01-04 22:36, Roger Blake wrote:
As I said, I absolutely refuse to reduce my own carbon emissions and in fact continue to see ways to increase them. (Do you dumbass hippies really believe that your stoopid windmills are solar panels are capable of keeping people warm and alive in the deep freeze that so much of the U.S. is currently experiencing?) Oh dear. Another retard equating the weather to climate. Sad. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Intel junk...Kernel-memory-leaking Intel processor design flawforces Linux, Windows redesign
Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
Den 2018-01-04 kl. 23:04, skrev Tim Streater: In article , DaveFroble wrote: chrisv wrote: Designed By India H1B Engineers wrote: Crucially, these updates to both Linux and Windows will incur a performance hit on Intel products. The effects are still being benchmarked, however we're looking at a ballpark figure of five to 30 per cent slow down, depending on the task and the processor model. This is ugly. Think of the large computing centers, for example Google's data centers. Suddenly, they will need significantly more CPU time, and thus electricity (and thus carbon), to get the job done? And once all the spanners are tossed into the works, which will slow things down, what happens when new CPUs without the issues are available? Will computers forever be artificially slowed down? A whole bunch of someones has seriously dropped the ball on this. Protected memory should be just that, protected, with no way to avoid the protection. But AIUI, the protection isn't applied when the CPU does speculative instruction execution. It's unclear why, though. Becuse the designers, for performance reasons, has mapped kernel memory into the user process address space and relies on the OS to check protection before any kernel memory (or code) is accessed. The issue with the current issues is that the hardware (the CPU) does these accesses in hardware "under the hood" without control by the OS. If you map your kernel memory in another way that uses the hardware protection facilities, you are (as I understand) safe, at the cost of worse performance to switch between user and kernel mode. As I wrote, someone dropped the ball on this one. Speculative execution is part of the HW, not software. It appears the HW doesn't follow it's own rules. Or, perhaps I don't actually understand the problem? -- David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: DFE Ultralights, Inc. 170 Grimplin Road Vanderbilt, PA 15486 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Intel junk...Kernel-memory-leaking Intel processor design flawforces Linux, Windows redesign
On 2018-01-05 06:33, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
Den 2018-01-05 kl. 04:36, skrev Roger Blake: On 2018-01-04, chrisv wrote: Might I say that was an awesome post, sir. His post was sheer idiocy. CO2 is not a pollutant - period. No, it is a natural part of the atmosphare, but it is a balance. It has to be in the right proportions. To much (and in particual if we continue to burn fosile fuels that ads carbone that was bound millions of years ago) and the climate will be hurt. Human caused "climate change/global warming" is junk science at its worst. Even Reid Bryson, the scientist who was the father of modern climate science, stated that it is "a bunch of hooey." I could probably name the scientist that has the opposite view, but the space in one posting would not be enough. And why pick one that has been dead for 10 years? The views on global warming has changed over the years and a lot has happend the last decade. As I said, I absolutely refuse to reduce my own carbon emissions and in fact continue to see ways to increase them. OK. fine. You'll be sorry and your children will be hurt. But then, if you could reduce your C02 emission, what would be the issue? (Do you dumbass hippies really believe that your stoopid windmills are solar panels are capable of keeping people warm and alive in the deep freeze that so much of the U.S. is currently experiencing?) That weather phenomenon is probably also caused by the disturbed climate caused by the CO2 emissions. So in the case of the current US weather issues, you could say that it is, in a way, self-inflicted. Well, no matter how much they try, even the most pushy climate scientists cannot link a given weather event to global warming. They can state that there's "possibly"/"probably" some link, but not to a causal level. That said, the current east coast weather event is linked to a an extreme jet-stream condition near Alaska and the bomb-cyclone development. So one _weather_ scientist has said both are extreme and _likely_ linked to climate change and that the combination of both at the same time just exacerbates the whole. Anyway, you could probably start with more efficient cars, shutting down all AC equipment and so on. This cold is just a temporarily storm and has little to do with the overall climate issues. One can not use the amount of snow on the back garden to judge about the climate at large. Exactly. Weather * Climate. -- “When it is all said and done, there are approximately 94 million full-time workers in private industry paying taxes to support 102 million non-workers and 21 million government workers. In what world does this represent a strong job market?” ..Jim Quinn |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Intel junk...Kernel-memory-leaking Intel processor design flawforces Linux, Windows redesign
Den 2018-01-05 kl. 15:15, skrev DaveFroble:
Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote: Den 2018-01-04 kl. 23:04, skrev Tim Streater: In article , DaveFroble wrote: chrisv wrote: Designed By India H1B Engineers wrote: Crucially, these updates to both Linux and Windows will incur a performance hit on Intel products. The effects are still being benchmarked, however we're looking at a ballpark figure of five to 30 per cent slow down, depending on the task and the processor model. This is ugly.* Think of the large computing centers, for example Google's data centers.* Suddenly, they will need significantly more CPU time, and thus electricity (and thus carbon), to get the job done? And once all the spanners are tossed into the works, which will slow things down, what happens when new CPUs without the issues are available?* Will computers forever be artificially slowed down? A whole bunch of someones has seriously dropped the ball on this. Protected memory should be just that, protected, with no way to avoid the protection. But AIUI, the protection isn't applied when the CPU does speculative instruction execution. It's unclear why, though. Becuse the designers, for performance reasons, has mapped kernel memory into the user process address space and relies on the OS to check protection before any kernel memory (or code) is accessed. The issue with the current issues is that the hardware (the CPU) does these accesses in hardware "under the hood" without control by the OS. If you map your kernel memory in another way that uses the hardware protection facilities, you are (as I understand) safe, at the cost of worse performance to switch between user and kernel mode. As I wrote, someone dropped the ball on this one. Speculative execution is part of the HW, not software.* It appears the HW doesn't follow it's own rules.* Or, perhaps I don't actually understand the problem? As I understand, as in Linux, the kernel memeory is mapped into each user process memory space (for performance reasons). The speculative fetch done by the hardware can read kernel memory directly. And when the protection schemas detects this, the data is already in the internal CPU cache. The solution seems to be to separate kernel and user memoery into separate virtual memory areas. So a re-mapp of the memory mapping is needed each time the process needs to read kernel memory, and that adds a perf cost. And yes, it looks like different "levels" in the hardware are bit out of sync... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|