subject:"\[ros\-dev\] \[ros\-diffs\] \[jgardou\] 50991\: \[NTOSKRNL\] \- Print supported CPU features. \- Simplify detection of non working but claimed SYSENTER support for intel processors \- Workaround a virtualbox f"

Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [jgardou] 50991: [NTOSKRNL] - Print supported CPU features. - Simplify detection of non working but claimed SYSENTER support for intel processors - Workaround a virtualbox "f

2011-03-07 Thread Timo Kreuzer


Am 07.03.2011 14:33, schrieb jgar...@svn.reactos.org:

Author: jgardou
Date: Mon Mar  7 13:33:10 2011
New Revision: 50991
...
+Reg[3] |= 0x800;
...
+if ((Reg[0]&  0x0FFF3FFF)<  0x0633)

I'd prefer symbolic constants over these magic numbers.


+
+DPRINT1("Supported CPU features :\n");
+#define print_supported(kf_value) \
+if(FeatureBits&  kf_value) DPRINT1("\t" #kf_value "\n")
+print_supported(KF_V86_VIS);
+print_supported(KF_RDTSC);
+print_supported(KF_CR4);
+print_supported(KF_CMOV);
+print_supported(KF_GLOBAL_PAGE);
+print_supported(KF_LARGE_PAGE);
+print_supported(KF_MTRR);
+print_supported(KF_CMPXCHG8B);
+print_supported(KF_MMX);
+print_supported(KF_WORKING_PTE);
+print_supported(KF_PAT);
+print_supported(KF_FXSR);
+print_supported(KF_FAST_SYSCALL);
+print_supported(KF_XMMI);
+print_supported(KF_3DNOW);
+print_supported(KF_AMDK6MTRR);
+print_supported(KF_XMMI64);
+print_supported(KF_DTS);
+print_supported(KF_NX_BIT);
+print_supported(KF_NX_DISABLED);
+print_supported(KF_NX_ENABLED);
+#undef print_supported
Can we make this more compact please? Like "Supported CPU features: 
V86_VIS, RDTSC ..."


Thanks,
Timo


___
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [jgardou] 50991: [NTOSKRNL] - Print supported CPU features. - Simplify detection of non working but claimed SYSENTER support for intel processors - Workaround a virtualbox "f

2011-03-07 Thread Olaf Siejka

The result:

(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:485) Supported CPU features :
(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:488) KF_V86_VIS(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:489)
KF_RDTSC(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:490) KF_CR4(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:491)
KF_CMOV(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:492)
KF_GLOBAL_PAGE(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:493)
KF_LARGE_PAGE(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:494)
KF_MTRR(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:495) KF_CMPXCHG8B(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:496)
KF_MMX(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:497)
KF_WORKING_PTE(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:498)
KF_PAT(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:499) KF_FXSR(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:500)
KF_FAST_SYSCALL(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:501)
KF_XMMI(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:504) KF_XMMI64(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:506)
KF_NX_BIT(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:510)
(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:816) Prefetch Cache: 64 bytes L2 Cache: 0 bytes L2
Cache Line: 64 bytes L2 Cache Associativity: 0

is not what i would call compact. Can we have something like:

(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:485) Supported CPU features : KF_V86_VIS, KF_RDTSC,
KF_CR4. KF_CMOV, KF_GLOBAL_PAGE, KF_LARGE_PAGE, KF_MTRR, KF_CMPXCHG8B,
KF_MMX, KF_WORKING_PTE, KF_PAT, KF_FXSR, KF_FAST_SYSCALL, KF_XMMI,
KF_XMMI64, KF_NX_BIT

instead?

Also it seems that L2 cache size detection is broken on my builbot's CPU:
(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:816) Prefetch Cache: 64 bytes L2 Cache: 0 bytes L2
Cache Line: 64 bytes L2 Cache Associativity: 0

Regards

2011/3/7 Timo Kreuzer 

> Am 07.03.2011 14:33, schrieb jgar...@svn.reactos.org:
>
>> Author: jgardou
>> Date: Mon Mar  7 13:33:10 2011
>> New Revision: 50991
>> ...
>> +Reg[3] |= 0x800;
>> ...
>> +if ((Reg[0]&  0x0FFF3FFF)<  0x0633)
>>
> I'd prefer symbolic constants over these magic numbers.
>
>  +
>> +DPRINT1("Supported CPU features :\n");
>> +#define print_supported(kf_value) \
>> +if(FeatureBits&  kf_value) DPRINT1("\t" #kf_value "\n")
>> +print_supported(KF_V86_VIS);
>> +print_supported(KF_RDTSC);
>> +print_supported(KF_CR4);
>> +print_supported(KF_CMOV);
>> +print_supported(KF_GLOBAL_PAGE);
>> +print_supported(KF_LARGE_PAGE);
>> +print_supported(KF_MTRR);
>> +print_supported(KF_CMPXCHG8B);
>> +print_supported(KF_MMX);
>> +print_supported(KF_WORKING_PTE);
>> +print_supported(KF_PAT);
>> +print_supported(KF_FXSR);
>> +print_supported(KF_FAST_SYSCALL);
>> +print_supported(KF_XMMI);
>> +print_supported(KF_3DNOW);
>> +print_supported(KF_AMDK6MTRR);
>> +print_supported(KF_XMMI64);
>> +print_supported(KF_DTS);
>> +print_supported(KF_NX_BIT);
>> +print_supported(KF_NX_DISABLED);
>> +print_supported(KF_NX_ENABLED);
>> +#undef print_supported
>>
> Can we make this more compact please? Like "Supported CPU features:
> V86_VIS, RDTSC ..."
>
> Thanks,
> Timo
>
>
> ___
> Ros-dev mailing list
> Ros-dev@reactos.org
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
___
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [jgardou] 50991: [NTOSKRNL] - Print supported CPU features. - Simplify detection of non working but claimed SYSENTER support for intel processors - Workaround a virtualbox "f

2011-03-07 Thread Samuel serapion

Try DbgPrint or OutputDebugString ;)
On Mar 7, 2011 4:09 PM, "Olaf Siejka"  wrote:
>
> The result:
>
> (ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:485) Supported CPU features :
> (ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:488) KF_V86_VIS(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:489)
KF_RDTSC(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:490) KF_CR4(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:491)
KF_CMOV(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:492)
KF_GLOBAL_PAGE(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:493)
KF_LARGE_PAGE(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:494)
KF_MTRR(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:495) KF_CMPXCHG8B(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:496)
KF_MMX(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:497)
KF_WORKING_PTE(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:498)
KF_PAT(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:499) KF_FXSR(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:500)
KF_FAST_SYSCALL(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:501)
KF_XMMI(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:504) KF_XMMI64(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:506)
KF_NX_BIT(ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:510)
> (ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:816) Prefetch Cache: 64 bytes L2 Cache: 0 bytes L2
Cache Line: 64 bytes L2 Cache Associativity: 0
>
> is not what i would call compact. Can we have something like:
>
> (ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:485) Supported CPU features : KF_V86_VIS,
KF_RDTSC, KF_CR4. KF_CMOV, KF_GLOBAL_PAGE, KF_LARGE_PAGE, KF_MTRR,
KF_CMPXCHG8B, KF_MMX, KF_WORKING_PTE, KF_PAT, KF_FXSR, KF_FAST_SYSCALL,
KF_XMMI, KF_XMMI64, KF_NX_BIT
>
> instead?
>
> Also it seems that L2 cache size detection is broken on my builbot's CPU:
> (ntoskrnl\ke\i386\cpu.c:816) Prefetch Cache: 64 bytes L2 Cache: 0 bytes L2
Cache Line: 64 bytes L2 Cache Associativity: 0
>
> Regards
>
> 2011/3/7 Timo Kreuzer 
>
>> Am 07.03.2011 14:33, schrieb jgar...@svn.reactos.org:
>>>
>>> Author: jgardou
>>> Date: Mon Mar  7 13:33:10 2011
>>> New Revision: 50991
>>> ...
>>> +Reg[3] |= 0x800;
>>> ...
>>> +if ((Reg[0]&  0x0FFF3FFF)<  0x0633)
>>
>> I'd prefer symbolic constants over these magic numbers.
>>
>>> +
>>> +DPRINT1("Supported CPU features :\n");
>>> +#define print_supported(kf_value) \
>>> +if(FeatureBits&  kf_value) DPRINT1("\t" #kf_value "\n")
>>> +print_supported(KF_V86_VIS);
>>> +print_supported(KF_RDTSC);
>>> +print_supported(KF_CR4);
>>> +print_supported(KF_CMOV);
>>> +print_supported(KF_GLOBAL_PAGE);
>>> +print_supported(KF_LARGE_PAGE);
>>> +print_supported(KF_MTRR);
>>> +print_supported(KF_CMPXCHG8B);
>>> +print_supported(KF_MMX);
>>> +print_supported(KF_WORKING_PTE);
>>> +print_supported(KF_PAT);
>>> +print_supported(KF_FXSR);
>>> +print_supported(KF_FAST_SYSCALL);
>>> +print_supported(KF_XMMI);
>>> +print_supported(KF_3DNOW);
>>> +print_supported(KF_AMDK6MTRR);
>>> +print_supported(KF_XMMI64);
>>> +print_supported(KF_DTS);
>>> +print_supported(KF_NX_BIT);
>>> +print_supported(KF_NX_DISABLED);
>>> +print_supported(KF_NX_ENABLED);
>>> +#undef print_supported
>>
>> Can we make this more compact please? Like "Supported CPU features:
V86_VIS, RDTSC ..."
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Timo
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Ros-dev mailing list
>> Ros-dev@reactos.org
>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Ros-dev mailing list
> Ros-dev@reactos.org
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
___
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [jgardou] 50991: [NTOSKRNL] - Print supported CPU features. - Simplify detection of non working but claimed SYSENTER support for intel processors - Workaround a virtualbox "f

2011-03-07 Thread Aleksey Bragin



On Mar 7, 2011, at 4:33 PM, jgar...@svn.reactos.org wrote:


Author: jgardou
 /* Check if the CPU is too old to support SYSENTER */
-if ((Prcb->CpuType < 6) ||
-((Prcb->CpuType == 6) && (Prcb->CpuStep < 0x0303)))
+if ((Reg[0] & 0x0FFF3FFF) < 0x0633)
 {
It was intentionally done over CpuType and CpuStep. Now you  
criptified it back to a raw Reg[0] value and weird hardcoded  
constant. Could you please 1) elaborate this change and 2) if you  
still think it's correct, and if you still tihnk(!) Windows does it  
same way, then rework it to use Prcb->Cpu* instead of these magic  
values?


Not to say adding a hack for VirtualBox is far from being a  
beautiful, and would need to be *at least* marked so that it's not  
forgotten.


Thanks,
Aleksey Bragin.

___
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [jgardou] 50991: [NTOSKRNL] - Print supported CPU features. - Simplify detection of non working but claimed SYSENTER support for intel processors - Workaround a virtualbox "f

2011-03-07 Thread Jérôme Gardou


Official intel documentation :
http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/appnote/241618.pdf, page 30.

As to know how it's made on windows, well, I hope they follow intel docs ;-)

Le 07/03/2011 21:49, Aleksey Bragin a écrit :



On Mar 7, 2011, at 4:33 PM, jgar...@svn.reactos.org wrote:


Author: jgardou
 /* Check if the CPU is too old to support SYSENTER */
-if ((Prcb->CpuType < 6) ||
-((Prcb->CpuType == 6) && (Prcb->CpuStep < 0x0303)))
+if ((Reg[0] & 0x0FFF3FFF) < 0x0633)
 {
It was intentionally done over CpuType and CpuStep. Now you criptified 
it back to a raw Reg[0] value and weird hardcoded constant. Could you 
please 1) elaborate this change and 2) if you still think it's 
correct, and if you still tihnk(!) Windows does it same way, then 
rework it to use Prcb->Cpu* instead of these magic values?


Not to say adding a hack for VirtualBox is far from being a beautiful, 
and would need to be *at least* marked so that it's not forgotten.


Thanks,
Aleksey Bragin.

___
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev



___
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [jgardou] 50991: [NTOSKRNL] - Print supported CPU features. - Simplify detection of non working but claimed SYSENTER support for intel processors - Workaround a virtualbox "f

Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [jgardou] 50991: [NTOSKRNL] - Print supported CPU features. - Simplify detection of non working but claimed SYSENTER support for intel processors - Workaround a virtualbox "f

Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [jgardou] 50991: [NTOSKRNL] - Print supported CPU features. - Simplify detection of non working but claimed SYSENTER support for intel processors - Workaround a virtualbox "f

Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [jgardou] 50991: [NTOSKRNL] - Print supported CPU features. - Simplify detection of non working but claimed SYSENTER support for intel processors - Workaround a virtualbox "f

Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [jgardou] 50991: [NTOSKRNL] - Print supported CPU features. - Simplify detection of non working but claimed SYSENTER support for intel processors - Workaround a virtualbox "f

5 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information