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, 25 Mar 2003 08:24:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:24:42 -0500 Received: from mailout01.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.80]:55488 "EHLO mailout01.sul.t-online.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:24:42 -0500 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:35:25 +0100 From: Andi Kleen To: Dave Jones , Andi Kleen , Ivan Kokshaysky , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: cacheline size detection code in 2.5.66 Message-ID: <20030325133525.GA30321@averell> References: <20030325071532.GA19217@averell> <20030325143310.A3487@jurassic.park.msu.ru> <20030325121527.GA29965@averell> <20030325124333.GB28451@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030325124333.GB28451@suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > Broken in i386 too. > > I don't see anything broken there. The K7 / K8 feature flags are not > bit for bit compatible though iirc (can't find my K8 cpuid manuals right now). Umm - they should be. Otherwise CPUID would be completely useless. I double checked both the Intel and the x86-64 manual now and bit 19 of 0000_0001 is CLFLUSH So cpufeature.h and the x86-64 test is correct 0000_0001 is supposed to be globally compatible. 8000_0001 is supposed to be compatible inside AMD CPUs (and 19 is reserved here) Ivan confused me. Either he read the application note wrong or it is wrong. -Andi