On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 05:24:27PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote: > > I'll look for someone who can confirm the 2.5MB/core detail. > > Ok ... re-read the erratum. The 2.5MB/core is clear. The E5+E7 is clear. > > No mention of the platform ID, but Jia is dropping that part. > > Boris ... what specific questions remain?
This magic: llc_size_per_core(c) > 2621440 as a reliable detection characteristic whether the patch is good to apply late. There must be a more reliable way to detect that. Also, the testing order is: llc_size_per_core(c) > 2621440 && c->microcode < 0x0b000021) { so if the LLC size per core check fails, the microcode revision being < 0x0b000021 doesn't matter. I.e., on machines with LLC-per-core < 2.5M, we can update even with revisions < 0x0b000021. Is that ordering correct? Also, this heuristic is not documented in the public doc AFAICT - I'm guessing that'll change soon...? Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.