[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090429105021.GG2373@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:50:21 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org>
Cc: x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [git-pull -tip] x86: cpu_debug patches
* Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 19:28 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -850,10 +903,10 @@ static int cpu_init_cpu(void)
> > > cpui = &cpu_data(cpu);
> > > if (!cpu_has(cpui, X86_FEATURE_MSR))
> > > continue;
> > > - per_cpu(cpu_model, cpu) = ((cpui->x86_vendor << 16) |
> > > - (cpui->x86 << 8) |
> > > - (cpui->x86_model));
> > > - per_cpu(cpu_modelflag, cpu) = get_cpu_modelflag(cpu);
> > > + per_cpu(cpu_modelflag, cpu) = get_cpu_flag(cpui);
> > > + if (!per_cpu(cpu_modelflag, cpu))
> > > + send_report(per_cpu(cpu_priv_count, cpu), cpui);
> >
> > This means that if the CPU is not enumerated in the model table
> > explicitly, we'll fall back to some really minimal output, right?
> >
>
> Yes.
That's a bug really: it means that for every new CPU type that comes
around we need to update this code. I.e. precisely for those CPUs
where we might need the most help from such a debug facility, we
wont have much info to look at ... New CPUs generally support all
the CPU features that are displayed here, in a compatible manner.
So that needs to be improved/changed to not be tied to such a static
'cpu model' enumeration but instead be CPU feature flags driven. See
all the existing cpu_has_*() tests we have.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists