From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756640AbZDOFfU (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2009 01:35:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752381AbZDOFfF (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2009 01:35:05 -0400 Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:39339 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752205AbZDOFfE (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2009 01:35:04 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] x86: cpu_debug.c prepare report if files are inappropriate or CPU is not supported From: Jaswinder Singh Rajput To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Alan Cox , x86 maintainers , LKML In-Reply-To: <20090414191622.GA797@elte.hu> References: <1239725240.2966.4.camel@ht.satnam> <20090414165052.GA2089@elte.hu> <1239728481.2966.21.camel@ht.satnam> <20090414184222.GC11214@elte.hu> <20090414200247.1d0a8667@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090414191622.GA797@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:04:25 +0530 Message-Id: <1239773665.15436.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.4 (2.24.4-1.fc10) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 21:16 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Alan Cox wrote: > > > > > Do you still think that boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor is better option in > > > > case for multiple CPUs. > > > > > > yes. Assymetric SMP never really happened on x86. > > > > It did but not between vendors. You can get away with a vendor > > assumption but cpu type (mixed 486SX/DX, PII/PIII/Celeron) mixed > > steppings and mixed speeds do occur. We've never supported the > > mixed 486SX cases but the PII/PIII cases work (or at least > > worked). > > yeah - but look at the specific purpose here: we are deciding > whether to print out state information related to major CPU > features. Mixed steppings/speeds might happen, mixed apic / > non-lapic not really. > We are trying to debug each CPU, so we should also collect information from each CPU. Just reading information from boot CPU and display information for all CPU is not correct. If we are getting information from boot CPU then we only need to show information for boot CPU and ignore others. I am trying to adding more features which will be unique for each CPU/core. So it seems current model is correct where I am collecting information for each CPU and printing information for each CPU. Thanks, -- JSR