Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:28:21 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: print_INTEL_info/print_INTEL_TLB Message-ID: <4E36B805.6070804@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <201108010847.52235.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <4E35732A.8060807@FreeBSD.org> <201108010847.52235.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 01/08/2011 15:47 John Baldwin said the following: > On Sunday, July 31, 2011 11:22:18 am Andriy Gapon wrote: >> >> Just an observation: >> - print_INTEL_info and print_INTEL_TLB are missing from amd64 identcpu.c >> - print_INTEL_TLB doesn't cover all the codes defined by Intel specs >> - not sure; perhaps print_INTEL_info should use deterministic cache > parameters >> as provided by CPUID 0x4 for a more complete coverage... > > It might be nice to create a sys/x86/x86/identcpu.c to merge the two which > would help with some of this. I agree with this suggestion regardless of the issue at hand. > print_INTEL_TLB() hasn't been updated since it > was added AFAIK which probably explains why it doesn't know about all of the > codes. Given the current state of this code - is it useful at all? Should we keep it in kernel provided that there are tools like cpuid, x86info, etc...? I would have no doubts if we gathered that information for some real use by kernel and then also printed it for user's convenience. But if the code is there just for printing (and under bootverbose), then I am not really sure. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E36B805.6070804>