From: Dave Jones <davej@suse.de>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Jordan <ledzep37@home.com>, Jordan Breeding <jordan.breeding@inet.com>
Subject: Re: Discrepancies between /proc/cpuinfo and Dave J's x86info
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 12:00:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010711120023.B24339@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3B4BC5C0.BDDC12A6@home.com>
On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 10:19:28PM -0500, Jordan wrote:
> cpuid level : 2
> cpuid level : 3
> According to Dave J's utility the cpu's appear to be exactly the same
> just as the Intel boxes said when I bought them. What might be causing
> these values to be different. And if the BIOS is setting things up
> incorrectly then why does Dave J's utility show the correct values?
> Thanks for any help.
This is a mystery to me. Rogier Wolff mentioned the same problem
a month or two back. At the time x86info had a bug that meant that
it was reading the same cpuid info from the same CPU twice in an
SMP box. This is fixed in 1.3 (or at least, should be).
This brings several questions.
1. Why does proc/cpuinfo think they are different.
2. Lowering from 3 -> 2 on a P3 happens when CPU serial number is
disabled. Is this not happening on the 2nd CPU? If not, why?
3. Why can't we see the discrepancy from userspace?
possibilities include
a. The CPUID /dev nodes are incorrectly numbered.
Can you check this, and make sure they have the right
minors ?
b. The CPUID driver cpu-scheduling is broken.
Unlikely, but possible, as afaik x86info is the only
program where you'd notice this difference.
hpa?
c. The CPU serial number disabling is done after the
/proc/cpuinfo creation. AFAIR this is not the case.
I'll check further into this after lunch.
regards,
Dave.
--
| Dave Jones. http://www.suse.de/~davej
| SuSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-07-11 11:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-07-11 3:19 Discrepancies between /proc/cpuinfo and Dave J's x86info Jordan
2001-07-11 4:27 ` H. Peter Anvin
2001-07-11 4:37 ` Jonathan Lundell
2001-07-11 4:44 ` H. Peter Anvin
2001-07-11 5:04 ` Jonathan Lundell
2001-07-11 11:00 ` Dave Jones [this message]
2001-07-11 12:03 ` Hugh Dickins
2001-07-11 12:23 ` Dave Jones
2001-07-11 14:09 ` [PATCH] " Hugh Dickins
2001-07-11 14:28 ` Dave Jones
2001-07-11 16:47 ` Jonathan Lundell
2001-07-11 17:00 ` Dave Jones
2001-07-12 6:58 ` [PATCH] Re: Discrepancies between /proc/cpuinfo and Dave J's x86i Kai Henningsen
2001-10-10 1:38 ` [PATCH] Re: Discrepancies between /proc/cpuinfo and Dave J's x86info H. Peter Anvin
2001-07-11 16:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-07-11 15:51 ` Jordan Breeding
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20010711120023.B24339@suse.de \
--to=davej@suse.de \
--cc=jordan.breeding@inet.com \
--cc=ledzep37@home.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox