From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751591AbaFEN3k (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jun 2014 09:29:40 -0400 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:45008 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750860AbaFEN3i (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jun 2014 09:29:38 -0400 Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 15:27:50 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: Stephane Eranian Cc: Matt Fleming , LKML , Peter Zijlstra , "mingo@elte.hu" , "ak@linux.intel.com" , Jiri Olsa , "Yan, Zheng" , Maria Dimakopoulou Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] perf/x86: add syfs entry to disable HT bug workaround Message-ID: <20140605132750.GA16811@pd.tnic> References: <1401917658-26065-1-git-send-email-eranian@google.com> <1401917658-26065-10-git-send-email-eranian@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 02:02:51PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote: > It is enabled by default. Nothing is done to try and disable it later > even once the kernel is fully booted. So this is mostly for testing > and power-users. You keep saying "power-users". What is the disadvantage for power users running with the workaround disabled? I.e., why would anyone want to disable it at all, what is the use case for that? Thanks. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. --