public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@amd.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] x86: cpu/proc.c adding extended_cpuid_level for /proc/cpuinfo
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:42:23 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090610174223.GA2697@aftab> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4A2FE9E1.3020705@zytor.com>

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:14:09AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >>>>
> >>> The more I'm thinking about this I think it was a mistake to put cpuid
> >>> level: there in the first place, too.  My opinion is increasingly to
> >>> leave this to x86info or other user-space tools.
> >>>
> >> cpuid level is as important as cpu family, model and stepping.
> >>
> >> For Intel, in some cases cpuid level is more important then cpu family,
> >> model and stepping. Like you cannot tell by looking at cpu family, model
> >> and stepping which model is new and which is old like 05_01 or 06_1A or
> >> 0F_03H ?
> >>
> >> But by looking at cpuid level and extended cpuid level you can tell
> >> which is new and which is old and which supports more features.
> >>
> >> So cpuid level and extended cpuid level is better scale than cpu family,
> >> model and stepping. So I think hiding this valuable information is a
> >> crime.
> > 
> > cpuid level and extended cpuid level tells the information about Intel
> > processor model.  Do you still think it is useless and should not be present
> > in /proc/cpuinfo .
> > 
> 
> I think it's pointless, because if you're doing this kind of stuff you
> might as well talk to CPUID directly.  We have a CPUID interface
> already.  The kernel isn't meant to replicate x86info or any of those
> tools -- it really can't, and at that point why stop at x86info... we
> could replicate arbitrary applications at that point.
> 
> As far as extended CPUID, why only the 0x0000 and 0x8000 ranges?
> Transmeta used 0x8086 and VIA uses 0xC000, but we don't even cache those
> internally, nevermind display them.
> 
> I'm not really all that doctrinal about this, but I'd like to get a
> decent answer to the question "where does it stop, *and why*".  It's a
> slippery slope, and without a target, it goes on forever.

I still fail to see a real use case which requires adding that info to
the kernel and querying CPUID directly is _absolutely_ not an option.
This is what the decisive argument should be and not some "but we have
already this and that in there." Otherwise its like painting a broken
car pink - it's still broken.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

Operating | Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
  System  | Karl-Hammerschmidt-Str. 34, 85609 Dornach b. München, Germany
 Research | Geschäftsführer: Thomas M. McCoy, Giuliano Meroni
  Center  | Sitz: Dornach, Gemeinde Aschheim, Landkreis München
  (OSRC)  | Registergericht München, HRB Nr. 43632


  reply	other threads:[~2009-06-10 17:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-05-12  7:14 [PATCH -tip] x86: cpu/proc.c adding extended_cpuid_level for /proc/cpuinfo Jaswinder Singh Rajput
2009-05-12 13:39 ` Borislav Petkov
2009-05-12 13:49   ` Jaswinder Singh Rajput
2009-05-12 14:10     ` Borislav Petkov
2009-05-12 16:40       ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-12 18:13         ` Borislav Petkov
2009-05-12 18:47           ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-12 19:49             ` Borislav Petkov
2009-06-05 19:20         ` Jaswinder Singh Rajput
2009-05-13  6:21 ` Andrew Morton
2009-05-13  8:03   ` Andi Kleen
2009-06-05 18:38   ` Jaswinder Singh Rajput
2009-06-05 20:55     ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-06-06  4:23       ` Jaswinder Singh Rajput
2009-06-10 16:40         ` Jaswinder Singh Rajput
2009-06-10 17:14           ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-06-10 17:42             ` Borislav Petkov [this message]
2009-06-10 17:48               ` H. Peter Anvin

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=20090610174223.GA2697@aftab \
    --to=borislav.petkov@amd.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jaswinder@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=x86@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