From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:52:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:52:36 -0400 Received: from albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.120]:27554 "EHLO albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:52:35 -0400 Message-ID: <3D1B8975.7050509@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:53:57 -0400 From: "John O'Donnell" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1a) Gecko/20020610 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Willy Tarreau CC: Zwane Mwaikambo , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: /proc/cpuinfo incomplete for AMD 386DX 40? References: <200206271942.g5RJgv6F008956@alpha.home.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org OK - Thank you all - I feel better now. :-) I tried fooling with the cache to no avail. still 5.17 But I dont care - Linux humms on this minor beast of a system. I was just looking for some clarification and I got it. Now I can put the 386 back in the closet and let it fun a few years more! :-) Thanks again! Johnny O Willy Tarreau wrote: > Hello! > >>>bogomips : 5.17 >> >>bogomips : 7.93 > > I remember having had this last rate on my Am386DX/40 too, when the cache > was enabled on the mainboard. If I disabled it, it dropped to about 5.2, > which might explain differences noticed here. So check if you have some > cache on your motherboard, and if it's enabled in your bios setup. And > don't trust these boards with fake plastic chips labelled "write back" > with no other vendor name, and for which the bios reported "Write Back > cache ON" instead of a size. > > >>>Is there any harm in Linux not identifying stuff like the manufacturer. >>>I dont know if the i386 supports any extensions that would show up in >>>the flags field. Think the bogomips is right?!? >> >>The flags field is stuff deduced from doing cpuid calls, so nothing there. >>The vendor might be a little difficult and might require depending on >>quirks of specific cpu models (i'm not 100% sure) therefore it would be a >>waste of memory to do. > > > CPUID was introduced in latest Intel's 486, when there was a lot of relabelling > of cheaper AMDs to Intel equivalents with higher frequencies (eg: Amd486-50 -> > i486-66). AMD took the step too at the time they were sending their new > DX4/write-back core, IIRC. But I've never seen a 386 with a CPUID instruction, > and trust me, I've searched for many ways to differenciate Intel's from AMD's. > Even the register values after reset were the same as intel's. And they were > very hard to catch because you had to reset the CPU and bypass the bios to > get the values, then restore all its context. The only noticeable difference > I found was that they didn't prefetch instructions the same way, and when you > disabled the external cache, you could notice a different pipeline stall depending > on instruction alignment. > > So no reliable means to do what you want without opening the case, IMHO. > > Cheers, > Willy > > -- === Never ask a geek why, just nod your head and slowly back away.=== +==============================+====================================+ | John O'Donnell | | | (Sr. Systems Engineer, | http://johnnyo.home.mindspring.com | | Net Admin, Webmaster, etc.) | E-Mail: johnnyo@mindspring.com | +==============================+====================================+