> This way we are 100% consistent and we don't lose the "cpu_has" information.
but /dev/cpu/*/{msr|cpuid} are "cpu has".
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 10:35:24AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Andreas argument was that earlier kernels weren't consistent, and as
> > such we shouldn't even bother to try to make newer kernels consistent.
> > We would be better off reporting our internal inconsistencies the way
> > earli
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 10:35:24AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Andreas argument was that earlier kernels weren't consistent, and as
> such we shouldn't even bother to try to make newer kernels consistent.
> We would be better off reporting our internal inconsistencies the way
> earlier kernels
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The fact that 2.2.x has bad control over capabilities and is messy is NOT
>> an excuse to screw up forever.
>
>2.2 has a mix of 'can I use' and 'does the cpu have' so using 2.2 as an
>example doesnt work
The above was exact
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 09:35:14AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 11:42:32AM -0500, Richard A Nelson wrote:
> > >
> > > Its fine either way on current x86 and many other platforms, but falls
> > > on its face in the
> The fact that 2.2.x has bad control over capabilities and is messy is NOT
> an excuse to screw up forever.
2.2 has a mix of 'can I use' and 'does the cpu have' so using 2.2 as an
example doesnt work
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a me
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 11:42:32AM -0500, Richard A Nelson wrote:
> >
> > Its fine either way on current x86 and many other platforms, but falls
> > on its face in the presence of asymetric MP.
>
> Point taken, feel free to have a can_I_use per-c
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 11:42:32AM -0500, Richard A Nelson wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> > It doesn't make much sense to me to put the "can_I_use" global information in
> > the per-cpu slots, that's obviously the wrong place for it. We simply need to
> > add a new entr
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 08:26:04PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >
> > Note that there was a precise reason for not implementing it as the TSC disable
> > (infact at first in 2.2.x I was clearing the bigflag in x86_capabilities too).
> > The r
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 06:08:21PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>Could people with Athlons please verify that pre3 works for them?
>
>It's basically Andrea's patch, but I moved the FPU save/restore games away
>from arch/i386/lib/mmx.c, so that everything is properly done in one place
>and others
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Could people with Athlons please verify that pre3 works for them?
It works very well wrt. fxsr.
-Udo.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Could people with Athlons please verify that pre3 works for them?
>
>
> Linus
Running nowuptime 6 minutes.
===
-- Tim
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTE
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> Note that there was a precise reason for not implementing it as the TSC disable
> (infact at first in 2.2.x I was clearing the bigflag in x86_capabilities too).
> The reason is that the way TSC gets disabled breaks /proc/cpuinfo.
No.
It FIXES /
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 06:08:21PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Could people with Athlons please verify that pre3 works for them?
It works fine.
> It also makes the fxsr disable act the same way the TSC disable does.
Note that there was a precise reason for not implementing it as the TSC d
Could people with Athlons please verify that pre3 works for them?
It's basically Andrea's patch, but I moved the FPU save/restore games away
from arch/i386/lib/mmx.c, so that everything is properly done in one place
and others call the appropriate helper functions instead of thinking that
they k
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 06:48:21PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Ah no, I even better, just pass `nofxsr` to the 2.4.1-pre2 kernel. (no
> need to recompile)
Ok here the right fix against 2.4.1-pre2 so now you can use 3dnow and fxsr
at the same time (and nofxsr can still dynamically disable fxs
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 06:46:45PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Until I fix the 3dnow code to use the i387.c library please workaround
> this way:
>
> --- ./arch/i386/config.in.~1~ Thu Jan 11 17:52:05 2001
> +++ ./arch/i386/config.in Thu Jan 11 18:38:29 2001
> @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@
> de
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 06:36:05PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 11:31:21AM +0100, Udo A. Steinberg wrote:
> > CONFIG_MK7=y
>
> I'm looking into it.
The fxsr fixes from 2.4.1-pre1 allows athlon to correctly use FXSR too (when
nofxsr isn't passed to the kernel of cours
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 11:31:21AM +0100, Udo A. Steinberg wrote:
> CONFIG_MK7=y
I'm looking into it.
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> #define HAVE_FXSR (cpu_has_fxsr)
> #define HAVE_XMM(cpu_has_xmm)
>
> I'm surprised actually - the same CR4 tests are in newer 2.2.x kernels,
> I think. (And in 2.2.x kernels, the above "cpu_has_xxx" do _not_ work
Nope. 2.2 doesnt have XMM/FXSR support. There are add o
Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> Did you have CONFIG_X86_FXSR or CONFIG_X86_RUNTIME_FXSR enabled when it
> worked?
>
> If not it probably means that the XServer is testing OSFXSR and the branch
> that handles it doesn't work.
--- linux-2.4.0/.config Thu Jan 11 11:22:11 2001
+++ linux-2.4.1/.config Thu Jan
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 11:05:55AM +0100, Udo A. Steinberg wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > Mind trying it with the "HAVE_FXSR" and "HAVE_XMM" macros in
> >
> > linux/include/asm-i386/processor.h
> >
> > fixed? They _should_ be just
> >
> > #define HAVE_FXSR (cpu_ha
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Mind trying it with the "HAVE_FXSR" and "HAVE_XMM" macros in
>
> linux/include/asm-i386/processor.h
>
> fixed? They _should_ be just
>
> #define HAVE_FXSR (cpu_has_fxsr)
> #define HAVE_XMM(cpu_has_xmm)
That doesn't help either.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Udo A. Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Next backed out the entire XMM and FXSR related stuff and now everything
>is fine again. The CPU in question is an AMD Thunderbird (see cpuinfo
>below). A friend with a similar setup but a Pentium-3 CPU doesn't seem
>to
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Udo A. Steinberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
UAS>
UAS> Next backed out the entire XMM and FXSR related stuff and now everything
UAS> is fine again. The CPU in question is an AMD Thunderbird (see cpuinfo
UAS> below). A friend with a similar setup but
Hi,
Ingo Oeser wrote:
>
> The only thing that looks responsible for this is the FXSR stuff,
> that changed.
>
> Like to try again backing this out?
Just to make sure it wasn't a gcc thing, I've recompiled the original
setup with egcs-1.1.2 (previously had used 2.95.2) and that did not
fix a th
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 02:31:03PM +0100, Udo A. Steinberg wrote:
> As I just found out, Linux 2.4.1-pre1 breaks several things on
> my system that worked perfectly in 2.4.0-final and the entire
> 2.4.0-ac tree.
>
> XFree 4.2.0 now fails to detect monitor timings and therefore
> removes all model
Hi all,
As I just found out, Linux 2.4.1-pre1 breaks several things on
my system that worked perfectly in 2.4.0-final and the entire
2.4.0-ac tree.
XFree 4.2.0 now fails to detect monitor timings and therefore
removes all modelines and bails out. The relevant diff of the
X logfile follows. Note
28 matches
Mail list logo
