On 2008/3/25, Chris Snook <csnook@redhat.com> wrote:
quoted text
> J.C. Pizarro wrote:
>  > On 2008/3/25, Chris Snook <csnook@redhat.com> wrote:
>  >> J.C. Pizarro wrote:
>  >>  > $ cat /proc/cpuinfo
>  >>  > processor       : 0
>  >>  > vendor_id       : AuthenticAMD
>  >>  > cpu family      : 15
>  >>  > model           : 47
>  >>  > model name      : AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3200+
>  >>  > ...
>  >>  > cache size      : 512 KB
>  >>  > ...
>  >>  >
>  >>  > The cache size is currently misinformed. It's not the real size because
>  >>  > it's 64+64+512 KiB = 640 KiB, not 512 KB.
>  >>  >
>  >>  > How can i know what hw-caches use the processors?
>  >>  > The current kernel doesn't know well what hw-caches uses.
>  >>  >
>  >>  > The good proposal is by example (the data below are not real):
>  >>  > * In old AMD Athlon64:
>  >>  >
>  >>  > cache L1        : 64 KiB I + 64 KiB D, 64 B line, direct way, ...
>  >>  > cache L2        : 512 KiB I+D-shared, exclusive, 128 associative way, ...
>  >>  > cache L3        : none
>  >>  >
>  >>  > * In Intel Core Duo:
>  >>  > processor       : 0
>  >>  > cache L1        : 32 KiB I + 32 KiB D, 64 B line, direct way, ...
>  >>  > cache L2        : 2048 KiB Cores-shared, inclusive, 128 associative way, ...
>  >>  > cache L3        : none
>  >>  >
>  >>  > processor       : 1
>  >>  > cache L1        : 32 KiB I + 32 KiB D, 64 B line, direct way, ...
>  >>  > cache L2        : 2048 KiB cores-shared, inclusive, 128 associative way, ...
>  >>  > cache L3        : none
>  >>  >
>  >>  > * In Quad:
>  >>  > processor       : 0
>  >>  > cache L1        : 32 KiB I + 32 KiB D, 64 B line, direct way, ...
>  >>  > cache L2        : 2048+2048 KiB pair-cores-shared, inclusive, 128
>  >>  > associative way, ...
>  >>  > cache L3        : none
>  >>  > ...
>  >>  > processor       : 3
>  >>  > cache L1        : 32 KiB I + 32 KiB D, 64 B line, direct way, ...
>  >>  > cache L2        : 2048+2048 KiB pair-cores-shared, inclusive, 128
>  >>  > associative way, ...
>  >>  > cache L3        : none
>  >>  >
>  >>  > It above is an example, put your symbols to /proc/cpuinfo in a
>  >>  > convenient manner.
>  >>  >
>  >>  >    Good bye ;)
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> I think you want this:
>  >>
>  >>  /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cache
>  >
>  > Thanks, but there is not easier manner to print the properties of hw-caches
>  > unless printing recursively this tree /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu[0-9]+/cache/
>  > that they are only numbers without symbolic fields.
>
>
> Then use dmidecode.  It's all in one place, and everyone expects it to be far
>  too long to read at a glance.
>
>
>  > There is not manner to know the speed (in MHz) of the L1, L2 and L3 caches.
>  >
>  >>  /proc/cpuinfo is intended to give a general summary of certain properties of the
>  >>  processor that tend to be particularly interesting, and present them all in one
>  >>  place.  It is not intended to expose everything the kernel knows about every
>  >>  processor on the system.
>  >
>  > /proc/cpuinfo doesn't give a general summary because it gives superfluous info.
>  >
>  > I think that it's better to refactorize /proc/cpuinfo still more.
>  >
>  > (
>  >    ... fields common to all present processors known by the kernel ....
>  >        [ to warn if the values are differents between cores ]
>  > )
>  > (
>  >    ... specific fields for each processor ... by example:
>  >
>  > processor       : 0
>  > cpu MHz         : 2000.000     # normal clocked
>  > bogomips        : 4010.63
>  > processor       : 1
>  > cpu MHz         : 500.000     # underclocked for energy saving ...
>  > bogomips        : 1003.20
>  >
>  > )
>  >
>  > I think that all the cores are equals in almost non-weird systems.
>  > With this scheme, the cpuinfo's reports will be smaller than before,
>  > and non-superfluous.
>
>
> It's precisely that sort of weirdness we want to be able to catch at a glance.
>  These days, there is no possible way to make /proc/cpuinfo satisfy everyone and
>  still be compact.  That's why we mostly leave it alone and put all the fun stuff
>  in /sys, which is much better suited to the ever-increasing complexity of modern
>  hardware.
>
>  If we refactor /proc/cpuinfo, it will break all sorts of things that use that
>  information to get an idea of what the system is running on.  All of the info is
>  there in /sys now anyway, so if you want a different format, write your own
>  userspace tool to scrape it together.  There's absolutely no need to implement
>  this purely cosmetic data formatting in the kernel.
>
>
>  -- Chris

Well, i understand as if this cosmetic data formatting can break the grep of
some applications.

But if the modern PC has 6 or 8 cores then it prints an equivalent to
x6 or x8 common pages in a small xterm console of 80x25 although
the panoramic TFT is bigger as 23' 1900x1200 pixels.

Tomorrow, 32 cores, it prints x32 instead of x8.
Soon, it will need cosmetic data formatting.

Hahahaha ;)
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/