Linus Torvalds writes: (Summary) Whether it gets to
a cache replacement or not is unclear.
a cache replacement or not is unclear.
So that naming is very misleading.
So that naming is very misleading.
It is quite possible (even likely) that the old in-order Atoms do not have this issue, because it's definitely true that in-order tends to limit speculation a lot, and any mis-predict will _probably_ kill instructions early enough that you'd never see this. Again, an in-order CPU is probably less aggressive in the memory pipeline too, so there is probably strong correlation, but there is no causal relationship.
a cache replacement or not is unclear.
So that naming is very misleading.
So that naming is very misleading.
It is quite possible (even likely) that the old in-order Atoms do not have this issue, because it's definitely true that in-order tends to limit speculation a lot, and any mis-predict will _probably_ kill instructions early enough that you'd never see this. Again, an in-order CPU is probably less aggressive in the memory pipeline too, so there is probably strong correlation, but there is no causal relationship.