i agree with mark.
On 28/11/2010, at 11:12 PM, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>> Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 17:02:43 +1100 (EST)
>> From: Damien Miller
>>
>> On Sat, 27 Nov 2010, Ted Unangst wrote:
>>
>>> if you really really need to know that your cpu cache has 48 fully
>>> associative entries, go consult
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Ian Darwin wrote:
>> Best thing would be to print it once per socket, i.e. for the first
>> core of each physical CPU.
>>
>> Oh, and the flags can be subtly different for other CPUs in the
>> system, even if they are exactly the same model, because the BIOS can
>>
> Best thing would be to print it once per socket, i.e. for the first
> core of each physical CPU.
>
> Oh, and the flags can be subtly different for other CPUs in the
> system, even if they are exactly the same model, because the BIOS can
> enable/disable some features.
Yes to the first, and the
> Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 17:02:43 +1100 (EST)
> From: Damien Miller
>
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2010, Ted Unangst wrote:
>
> > if you really really need to know that your cpu cache has 48 fully
> > associative entries, go consult the spec sheet. otherwise, save some
> > electrons.
>
> or, how about o
> Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 21:13:23 -0500 (EST)
> From: Ted Unangst
>
> if you really really need to know that your cpu cache has 48 fully
> associative entries, go consult the spec sheet. otherwise, save some
> electrons.
Well, those spec sheets aren't always easy to find. From time to time
C
On Sat, 27 Nov 2010, Ted Unangst wrote:
> if you really really need to know that your cpu cache has 48 fully
> associative entries, go consult the spec sheet. otherwise, save some
> electrons.
or, how about only print this (and flags) for the first attached CPU?
Unless there are plans to suppo
if you really really need to know that your cpu cache has 48 fully
associative entries, go consult the spec sheet. otherwise, save some
electrons.
i'm running i386 atm (which doesn't print this junk btw), so diff is
untested.
Index: cacheinfo.c
