Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 12:17:30 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: print_INTEL_info/print_INTEL_TLB Message-ID: <201108011217.30206.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4E36B805.6070804@FreeBSD.org> References: <4E35732A.8060807@FreeBSD.org> <201108010847.52235.jhb@freebsd.org> <4E36B805.6070804@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday, August 01, 2011 10:28:21 am Andriy Gapon wrote: > 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. Yeah, I would be fine with just tossing it. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201108011217.30206.jhb>