From: Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk>
To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl>
Cc: "David L. DeGeorge" <dld@degeorge.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CPU/cache detection wrong
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 17:31:21 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20021001163121.GA5565@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1021001171405.13606L-100000@delta.ds2.pg.gda.pl>
On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 06:03:03PM +0200, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> > > Strange -- why not to default to 256K and override it with the value
> > > obtained from a cache descriptor if != 0, then?
> > Because the cache descriptor IS zero. So we default to 256K.
> You wrote "some of", so I suppose others are OK.
Yes, one stepping only afaik. Though the test in the kernel checks
for 6.11,x with l2==0 just to be sure.
> I meant those others.
> Anyway -- is it a new problem? I can't see it documented in the current
> P3 spec update. That's weird -- Intel might hesitate documenting
> weirdnesses of their chips, however they tend to include such simple and
> obvious errata in the update.
>
> The spec actually states the L2 descriptor for the P3 may be as follows:
>
> - 0x43 -- 512kB, unified,
> - 0x82 -- 256kB, 8-way set associative,
> - 0x83 -- 512kB, 8-way set associative.
>
> The last descriptor is omitted from the list of known types in cache_table
> in 2.4.20-pre8 -- could it be the culprit?
Added in last nights patch. IIRC, the errata meant there was no
descriptor at all iirc.
TBH, I can't recall which document I read about this in, as it was a few
months back now. I'll look through old mails when I get chance and see if
I can get to the bottom of it.
It's possible that this was reported to me, and it is the case you
describe (missing descriptor), but the old code should have picked
apart the descriptors in a different way to the new table-lookup,
so that *should* have worked ok if the descriptor was correct.
Dave
--
| Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-10-01 16:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-10-01 1:06 CPU/cache detection wrong David L. DeGeorge
2002-10-01 11:18 ` Dave Jones
2002-10-01 13:35 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2002-10-01 15:15 ` Dave Jones
2002-10-01 16:03 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2002-10-01 16:31 ` Dave Jones [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-09-28 12:29 Alexander Hoogerhuis
2002-09-30 16:34 ` Alan Cox
2002-09-30 17:43 ` Alexander Hoogerhuis
2002-09-30 22:15 ` Dave Jones
2002-10-01 7:21 ` Alexander Hoogerhuis
2002-10-01 11:06 ` Dave Jones
2002-10-01 15:31 ` Alexander Hoogerhuis
2002-10-01 17:01 ` Vojtech Pavlik
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=20021001163121.GA5565@suse.de \
--to=davej@codemonkey.org.uk \
--cc=dld@degeorge.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl \
/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