Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] M386 flush_one_tlb invlpg | From | Alan Cox <> | Date | 29 Aug 2002 00:17:58 +0100 |
| |
On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 21:30, Hugh Dickins wrote: > New patch below defines cpu_has_invlpg as (boot_cpu_data.x86 > 3). > But I do feel safer with that original cpu_has_pge test, which was > using a decent capability flag, and only changed behaviour of the > CONFIG_M386 __flush_tlb_one when it's necessary. > > Isn't CONFIG_M386 about maximum safe applicability, rather than speed? > Am I imagining it, or were there a few i386 + i486 SMP machines built? > Or might there be some i486 clone which didn't really implement invlpg, > which could be used with a CONFIG_M386 kernel before this change, > but not after? But perhaps I'm just dreaming up excuses for my > senselessness - your call.
To answer that
There are no SMP i386 boxes that support Intel MP 1.1 There are a few SMP 486 boxes using MP 1.1
The nx586 processor is a '586' class CPU that has neither wp nor invlpg by default. I believe however that it reports family '3' if it has the hypercode loaded which lacks invlpg
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |