From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 07:09:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 07:09:50 -0400 Received: from noodles.codemonkey.org.uk ([213.152.47.19]:55785 "EHLO noodles.internal") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 07:09:49 -0400 Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:18:26 +0100 From: Dave Jones To: "David L. DeGeorge" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: CPU/cache detection wrong Message-ID: <20021001111826.GA18583@suse.de> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , "David L. DeGeorge" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200209302106.10518.dld@degeorge.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200209302106.10518.dld@degeorge.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 09:06:10PM -0400, David L. DeGeorge wrote: > I too have incorrect CPU/cache detection using 2.4.20-pre7-ac3. I seem to > recall it working correctly on 2.4.19-ac1 (this was the version in which the > ac did not get added by the patch). Anyway I have a tualatin PIII with a 512K > L2 cache. Some of the tualatins have an errata which makes L2 cache sizing impossible. They actually report they have 0K L2 cache. By checking the CPU model, we can guess we have at least 256K (which is where Linux got that number from in your case). But this however means the 512K models will report as 256K too. To work around it, boot with cachesize=512 and all will be good. Dave -- | Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk