Re: Hyper-Threading Vulnerability

Alan Cox wrote:
> HT for most users is pretty irrelevant, its a neat idea but the
> benchmarks don't suggest its too big a hit

On real-world applications, I haven't seen HT boost performance by more
than 15% on a Pentium 4 -- and the usual gain is around 5%, if anything
at all. HT is a nice idea, but I don't enable it on my systems.

..Scott
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Hyper-Threading Vulnerability
  - From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: Hyper-Threading Vulnerability
  - From: Grant Coady <[email protected]>
- Re: Hyper-Threading Vulnerability
  - From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>

References:
- Hyper-Threading Vulnerability
  - From: Gabor MICSKO <[email protected]>
- Re: Hyper-Threading Vulnerability
  - From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- Re: Hyper-Threading Vulnerability
  - From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: [RCF] [PATCH] unprivileged mount/umount
Next by Date: tickle nmi watchdog whilst doing serial writes.
Previous by thread: Re: Hyper-Threading Vulnerability
Next by thread: Re: Hyper-Threading Vulnerability
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Kernel Newbies] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Photo] [Stuff] [Gimp] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Video 4 Linux] [Linux for the blind] [Linux Resources]