From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 1 18:10:47 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 779BF10656D5; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 18:10:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FBE48FC16; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 18:10:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (66.111.2.69.static.nyinternet.net [66.111.2.69]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E47B646B24; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 14:10:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (unknown [209.249.190.124]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7EDC98A02C; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 14:10:46 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: "Jung-uk Kim" Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 14:08:46 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/8.2-CBSD-20110617; KDE/4.5.5; amd64; ; ) References: <4E35732A.8060807@FreeBSD.org> <201108011217.30206.jhb@freebsd.org> <201108011344.28449.jkim@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <201108011344.28449.jkim@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201108011408.46105.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Mon, 01 Aug 2011 14:10:46 -0400 (EDT) Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Andriy Gapon 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 18:10:47 -0000 On Monday, August 01, 2011 1:44:18 pm Jung-uk Kim wrote: > On Monday 01 August 2011 12:17 pm, John Baldwin wrote: > > 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. > > Tossing print_INTEL_info() entirely or just print_INTEL_TLB()? > > If we are going to remove print_INTEL_info(), then I think we should > do the same for print_AMD_info() (except for the last warning message > in the function) because it's going to have the fate sooner or later, > i.e., unmaintained and rot (if it isn't already). Actually, yeah, I would toss all but the warning at the end of print_AMD_info(). -- John Baldwin