>
> The present situation is inconsistent: "notsc" removes cpuinfo's
> "tsc" flag in the UP case (when cpu_data[0] is boot_cpu_data), but
> not in the SMP case. I don't believe HPA's recent mods affected that
> behaviour, but it is made consistent (cleared in SMP case too) by the
> patch I sent
The present situation is inconsistent: "notsc" removes cpuinfo's
"tsc" flag in the UP case (when cpu_data[0] is boot_cpu_data), but
not in the SMP case. I don't believe HPA's recent mods affected that
behaviour, but it is made consistent (cleared in SMP case too) by the
patch I sent him a
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> The present situation is inconsistent: "notsc" removes cpuinfo's
> "tsc" flag in the UP case (when cpu_data[0] is boot_cpu_data), but
> not in the SMP case. I don't believe HPA's recent mods affected that
> behaviour, but it is made consistent (cleared
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On 7 Dec 2000, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately the most important instance of the in-kernel flag -- the
> > global one in the somewhat misnamed boot_cpu_data.x86_features --
> > isn't actually readable in the /proc/cpuinfo file. It is
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
On 7 Dec 2000, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Unfortunately the most important instance of the in-kernel flag -- the
global one in the somewhat misnamed boot_cpu_data.x86_features --
isn't actually readable in the /proc/cpuinfo file. It is perfectly
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Hugh Dickins wrote:
The present situation is inconsistent: "notsc" removes cpuinfo's
"tsc" flag in the UP case (when cpu_data[0] is boot_cpu_data), but
not in the SMP case. I don't believe HPA's recent mods affected that
behaviour, but it is made consistent (cleared in
6 matches
Mail list logo
