Re: CPU detection broken in 2.5.27?

Re: CPU detection broken in 2.5.27?

[Mikael Pettersson]

On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 14:08:52 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Mochel wrote:
>> I meant ->x86_model there, I assume you did too, and you have a 0xF24/0xF27 cpu.
>> I wasn't aware these were HT aware. In fact, only 0xF50 are confirmed.
>> Interesting.
>
>Actually, it's Family 15, Model 1, Stepping 2. Though the HT capability
>shows up, it's disabled, so it's one of the pre-Foster P4s (though I don't
>know what they're called).

cpuid 0xF12 is a standard Willamette core P4; I have one heating my room :-)
Model 2 should be Northwood, AFAIK.

But why the table? Aren't you using the extended cpuid levels and/or the
BrandID to get the names for cpuid 0x680 (coppermine) and above cpus?

/Mikael

Re: CPU detection broken in 2.5.27?

[Patrick Mochel]

On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Dave Jones wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 01:34:37PM -0700, Patrick Mochel wrote:
>  > 
>  > > Which stepping do you have ?
>  > 2.
> 
> I meant ->x86_model there, I assume you did too, and you have a 0xF24/0xF27 cpu.
> I wasn't aware these were HT aware. In fact, only 0xF50 are confirmed.
> Interesting.

Actually, it's Family 15, Model 1, Stepping 2. Though the HT capability
shows up, it's disabled, so it's one of the pre-Foster P4s (though I don't
know what they're called).

>  > Sorry, it was in the invisible charset. 
> 
> Ah ok. I'll install the correct font later.

You should already have it, though you might have to look a bit harder. 

>  > ===== arch/i386/kernel/cpu/intel.c 1.3 vs edited =====
>  > --- 1.3/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/intel.c	Wed Jul 10 03:46:31 2002
>  > +++ edited/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/intel.c	Tue Jul 23 13:25:01 2002
>  > @@ -232,15 +232,19 @@
>  >  	if (c->x86 == 6) {
>  >  		switch (c->x86_model) {
>  >  		case 5:
>  > -			if (l2 == 0)
>  > -				p = "Celeron (Covington)";
>  > -			if (l2 == 256)
>  > -				p = "Mobile Pentium II (Dixon)";
>  > +			if (c->x86_mask == 0) {
>  > +				if (l2 == 0)
>  > +					p = "Celeron (Covington)";
>  > +				else if (l2 == 256)
>  > +					p = "Mobile Pentium II (Dixon)";
> 
> Something that just nagged me about this code.
> Where are those strings stored ? If they're in the same
> text as this code, we shouldn't be creating references to them,
> as after boot, all this will go poof. (it's __init)

They're being placed in .rodata, so they should be ok. 

New patch, with the name for my P4 reset..

	-pat

===== arch/i386/kernel/cpu/intel.c 1.3 vs edited =====
--- 1.3/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/intel.c	Wed Jul 10 03:46:31 2002
+++ edited/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/intel.c	Tue Jul 23 14:07:12 2002
@@ -232,15 +232,19 @@
 	if (c->x86 == 6) {
 		switch (c->x86_model) {
 		case 5:
-			if (l2 == 0)
-				p = "Celeron (Covington)";
-			if (l2 == 256)
-				p = "Mobile Pentium II (Dixon)";
+			if (c->x86_mask == 0) {
+				if (l2 == 0)
+					p = "Celeron (Covington)";
+				else if (l2 == 256)
+					p = "Mobile Pentium II (Dixon)";
+			}
 			break;
 			
 		case 6:
 			if (l2 == 128)
 				p = "Celeron (Mendocino)";
+			else if (c->x86_mask == 0 || c->x86_mask == 5)
+				p = "Celeron-A";
 			break;
 			
 		case 8:
@@ -348,6 +352,26 @@
 			  [4] "Pentium MMX",
 			  [7] "Mobile Pentium 75 - 200", 
 			  [8] "Mobile Pentium MMX"
+		  }
+		},
+		{ X86_VENDOR_INTEL,     6,
+		  { 
+			  [0] "Pentium Pro A-step",
+			  [1] "Pentium Pro", 
+			  [3] "Pentium II (Klamath)", 
+			  [4] "Pentium II (Deschutes)", 
+			  [5] "Pentium II (Deschutes)", 
+			  [6] "Mobile Pentium II",
+			  [7] "Pentium III (Katmai)", 
+			  [8] "Pentium III (Coppermine)", 
+			  [10] "Pentium III (Cascades)",
+			  [11] "Pentium III (Tualatin)",
+		  }
+		},
+		{ X86_VENDOR_INTEL,     15,
+		  {
+			  [1] "Pentium 4 (Unknown)",
+			  [5] "Pentium 4 (Foster)",
 		  }
 		},
 	},

Re: CPU detection broken in 2.5.27?

[Dave Jones]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 01:34:37PM -0700, Patrick Mochel wrote:
 > 
 > > Which stepping do you have ?
 > 2.

I meant ->x86_model there, I assume you did too, and you have a 0xF24/0xF27 cpu.
I wasn't aware these were HT aware. In fact, only 0xF50 are confirmed.
Interesting.

 > Sorry, it was in the invisible charset. 

Ah ok. I'll install the correct font later.

 > ===== arch/i386/kernel/cpu/intel.c 1.3 vs edited =====
 > --- 1.3/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/intel.c	Wed Jul 10 03:46:31 2002
 > +++ edited/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/intel.c	Tue Jul 23 13:25:01 2002
 > @@ -232,15 +232,19 @@
 >  	if (c->x86 == 6) {
 >  		switch (c->x86_model) {
 >  		case 5:
 > -			if (l2 == 0)
 > -				p = "Celeron (Covington)";
 > -			if (l2 == 256)
 > -				p = "Mobile Pentium II (Dixon)";
 > +			if (c->x86_mask == 0) {
 > +				if (l2 == 0)
 > +					p = "Celeron (Covington)";
 > +				else if (l2 == 256)
 > +					p = "Mobile Pentium II (Dixon)";

Something that just nagged me about this code.
Where are those strings stored ? If they're in the same
text as this code, we shouldn't be creating references to them,
as after boot, all this will go poof. (it's __init)

If they are stored there, a simple strdup/memcpy will fix it
of course, but I'm wondering if we even need to. Or does
our linker magic put strings in data sections ?

        Dave
 
-- 
| Dave Jones.        http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs

Re: CPU detection broken in 2.5.27?

[Dave Jones]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 01:26:38PM -0700, Patrick Mochel wrote:

 > Heh. They've always been there, then. I really did re-add the table from 
 > an older arch/i386/kernel/setup.c ;)
 > 
 > The Celeron detection happens in init_intel(). 

Ah, ok. Then all those cases should magically work..

 > Added. Wait, isn't Foster the one with HT?

AFAIK yes. Don't have one to test with, so can't say for sure.

 > The ones I have say that they 
 > support it, so wouldn't that be a Foster (as well as stepping 5)? 

Which stepping do you have ?
 
 > Updated patch appended. This updated version hasn't been tested, as I
 > don't have any of those processors at my disposal...

-ENOAPPENDAGE.

        Dave

-- 
| Dave Jones.        http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs

Re: CPU detection broken in 2.5.27?

[Patrick Mochel]

> Which stepping do you have ?

2.

>  > Updated patch appended. This updated version hasn't been tested, as I
>  > don't have any of those processors at my disposal...
> 
> -ENOAPPENDAGE.

Sorry, it was in the invisible charset. 

	-pat

===== arch/i386/kernel/cpu/intel.c 1.3 vs edited =====
--- 1.3/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/intel.c	Wed Jul 10 03:46:31 2002
+++ edited/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/intel.c	Tue Jul 23 13:25:01 2002
@@ -232,15 +232,19 @@
 	if (c->x86 == 6) {
 		switch (c->x86_model) {
 		case 5:
-			if (l2 == 0)
-				p = "Celeron (Covington)";
-			if (l2 == 256)
-				p = "Mobile Pentium II (Dixon)";
+			if (c->x86_mask == 0) {
+				if (l2 == 0)
+					p = "Celeron (Covington)";
+				else if (l2 == 256)
+					p = "Mobile Pentium II (Dixon)";
+			}
 			break;
 			
 		case 6:
 			if (l2 == 128)
 				p = "Celeron (Mendocino)";
+			else if (c->x86_mask == 0 || c->x86_mask == 5)
+				p = "Celeron-A";
 			break;
 			
 		case 8:
@@ -348,6 +352,26 @@
 			  [4] "Pentium MMX",
 			  [7] "Mobile Pentium 75 - 200", 
 			  [8] "Mobile Pentium MMX"
+		  }
+		},
+		{ X86_VENDOR_INTEL,     6,
+		  { 
+			  [0] "Pentium Pro A-step",
+			  [1] "Pentium Pro", 
+			  [3] "Pentium II (Klamath)", 
+			  [4] "Pentium II (Deschutes)", 
+			  [5] "Pentium II (Deschutes)", 
+			  [6] "Mobile Pentium II",
+			  [7] "Pentium III (Katmai)", 
+			  [8] "Pentium III (Coppermine)", 
+			  [10] "Pentium III (Cascades)",
+			  [11] "Pentium III (Tualatin)",
+		  }
+		},
+		{ X86_VENDOR_INTEL,     15,
+		  {
+			  [1] "Pentium 4 (Foster)",
+			  [5] "Pentium 4 (Foster)",
 		  }
 		},
 	},

Re: CPU detection broken in 2.5.27?

[Patrick Mochel]

On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Dave Jones wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 12:14:08PM -0700, Patrick Mochel wrote:
> 
> There are some problems here.

Heh. They've always been there, then. I really did re-add the table from 
an older arch/i386/kernel/setup.c ;)

>  > +		{ X86_VENDOR_INTEL,     6,

> [4] is Deschutes according to the docs I used for x86info.

Ok, I added it. 

>  > +			  [5] "Pentium II (Deschutes)", 
> 
> What [5] is is dependant upon cache size & stepping.
> 
> stepping 0:
>     0KB - Celeron (Covington)
>     256KB - Mobile Pentium II (Dixon)
> stepping 1-3 Pentium II (Deschutes)

The Celeron detection happens in init_intel(). 

>  > +			  [6] "Mobile Pentium II",
> 
> cache size 128KB - Celeron (Mendocino)

Handled in init_intel().

> Stepping 0/5 - Celeron-A

Added to init_intel().

> Stepping A - Mobile PII

Um, leave as default? 

>  > +			  [8] "Pentium III (Coppermine)", 
> 
> L2 Cachesize == 128 == Celeron (Else P3)

Handled in init_intel().

>  > +			  [10] "Pentium III (Cascades)",
> 
> 6a0 is another P2 Deschutes aparently, but this seems
> odd, and I should double check this sometime.

Leaving unchanged.

>  > +			  [11] "Pentium III (Tualatin)",
> 
> Could be a celeron too. Not sure of cache size.

Ditto, for the sake of ignorance. 

>  > + [1] "Pentium 4 (Unknown)",
> 
> Model 5 = (Foster)

Added. Wait, isn't Foster the one with HT? The ones I have say that they 
support it, so wouldn't that be a Foster (as well as stepping 5)? 

Updated patch appended. This updated version hasn't been tested, as I
don't have any of those processors at my disposal...

	-pat

Re: CPU detection broken in 2.5.27?

[Dave Jones]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 12:14:08PM -0700, Patrick Mochel wrote:

There are some problems here.

 > +		{ X86_VENDOR_INTEL,     6,
 > +		  { 
 > +			  [0] "Pentium Pro A-step",
 > +			  [1] "Pentium Pro", 
 > +			  [3] "Pentium II (Klamath)", 

[4] is Deschutes according to the docs I used for x86info.

 > +			  [5] "Pentium II (Deschutes)", 

What [5] is is dependant upon cache size & stepping.

stepping 0:
    0KB - Celeron (Covington)
    256KB - Mobile Pentium II (Dixon)
stepping 1-3 Pentium II (Deschutes)

 > +			  [6] "Mobile Pentium II",

cache size 128KB - Celeron (Mendocino)
Stepping 0/5 - Celeron-A
Stepping A - Mobile PII

 > +			  [8] "Pentium III (Coppermine)", 

L2 Cachesize == 128 == Celeron (Else P3)


 > +			  [10] "Pentium III (Cascades)",

6a0 is another P2 Deschutes aparently, but this seems
odd, and I should double check this sometime.

 > +			  [11] "Pentium III (Tualatin)",

Could be a celeron too. Not sure of cache size.

 > +			  [1] "Pentium 4 (Unknown)",

Model 5 = (Foster)
Unsure of other codenames.

        Dave

-- 
| Dave Jones.        http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs

Re: CPU detection broken in 2.5.27?

[Patrick Mochel]

On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Dave Jones wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 06:07:26PM +0200, Markus Pfeiffer wrote:
> 
>  > I just noticed that my /proc/cpuinfo states wrong or incomplete 
>  > information about my processor. My PIII-1000M Processor is reported as 
>  > 00/0B (Stepping?)
> 
> Yep, I told Patrick about this last week sometime. The problem is
> that only later Intels (from P4 onwards iirc) have the
> name string cpuid function. Without which we need a table to
> do the family/model/stepping translation to name strings.
> 
> It's not that much work (and most of it already exists in the
> kernels before the per-cpu split up).

Sorry about the delay in fixing this. The fix is really simple - just 
re-add the ID tables for PIIIs. I also added one for P4s, since mine 
wasn't getting automatically named. Though, I don't know what the code 
name for the model is, so it just shows up as "Pentium 4 (Unknown)"...

	-pat

===== arch/i386/kernel/cpu/intel.c 1.3 vs edited =====
--- 1.3/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/intel.c	Wed Jul 10 03:46:31 2002
+++ edited/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/intel.c	Tue Jul 23 12:04:48 2002
@@ -350,6 +350,24 @@
 			  [8] "Mobile Pentium MMX"
 		  }
 		},
+		{ X86_VENDOR_INTEL,     6,
+		  { 
+			  [0] "Pentium Pro A-step",
+			  [1] "Pentium Pro", 
+			  [3] "Pentium II (Klamath)", 
+			  [5] "Pentium II (Deschutes)", 
+			  [6] "Mobile Pentium II",
+			  [7] "Pentium III (Katmai)", 
+			  [8] "Pentium III (Coppermine)", 
+			  [10] "Pentium III (Cascades)",
+			  [11] "Pentium III (Tualatin)",
+		  }
+		},
+		{ X86_VENDOR_INTEL,     15,
+		  { 
+			  [1] "Pentium 4 (Unknown)",
+		  }
+		},
 	},
 	c_init:		init_intel,
 	c_identify:	generic_identify,

Re: CPU detection broken in 2.5.27?

[Dave Jones]

On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 06:07:26PM +0200, Markus Pfeiffer wrote:

 > I just noticed that my /proc/cpuinfo states wrong or incomplete 
 > information about my processor. My PIII-1000M Processor is reported as 
 > 00/0B (Stepping?)

Yep, I told Patrick about this last week sometime. The problem is
that only later Intels (from P4 onwards iirc) have the
name string cpuid function. Without which we need a table to
do the family/model/stepping translation to name strings.

It's not that much work (and most of it already exists in the
kernels before the per-cpu split up).

        Dave

-- 
| Dave Jones.        http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs

CPU detection broken in 2.5.27?

[Markus Pfeiffer]

Hi all,

I just noticed that my /proc/cpuinfo states wrong or incomplete 
information about my processor. My PIII-1000M Processor is reported as 
00/0B (Stepping?) and with only 32 KB of cache (which obviously is the 
L1d and L1i value). I think this happened during the split of the CPU 
detection code... I found nothing about that in archives or similar 
(i.e. on the list).
Perhaps someone who knows how to do it can look into that as i would 
need hours just to understand just what they are doing there and to read 
the specs of the CPUID instruction etc

Thanks in advance

Markus