lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [git-pull -tip] x86: cpu_debug patches

* Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 19:28 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@kernel.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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-29 12:55    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans