From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 1 14:28:23 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E466B106566C; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 14:28:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 136828FC16; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 14:28:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from odyssey.starpoint.kiev.ua (alpha-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.101]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id RAA28017; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:28:21 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <4E36B805.6070804@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:28:21 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110705 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin References: <4E35732A.8060807@FreeBSD.org> <201108010847.52235.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201108010847.52235.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: print_INTEL_info/print_INTEL_TLB X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 14:28:24 -0000 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