On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Mike Smith wrote:
> > I don't understand the idea here. Are you going to have a KLD that
> > patches the kernel?
>
> That's the general idea.
>
> > If so, you'd have to make world before it'd become
> > active, in which case rebuilding the kernel would be quicker.
>
> Ho
> > > > If it's something that can be done as eg. a KLD
> > > > we might want to do that instead, or through some other mechanism for
> > > > handling these sort of CPU quirks.
> > >
> > > It sounds good. If binary-format quriks is supported, we can supply
> > > update
Mike Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you look at the output of 'memcontrol list' and tell us who 'owns'
> this MTRR?
The `memcontrol list' gives:
0/1 BIOS write-back fixed-base fixed-length set-by-firmware active
1/1 BIOS write-back fixed-base fixed-length set-by-firmware a
> > Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > If we are talking about errata #34 the correct solution is to not use
> > > 4MB pages.
> >
> > Is FreeBSD #29-safe?
>
> variable MTTRs are set as follows:
> MSR (200): 0006
> MSR (201): 000ffc000800
> MSR (202):
On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, Mike Smith wrote:
> > Mike Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > If it's something that can be done as eg. a KLD
> > > we might want to do that instead, or through some other mechanism for
> > > handling these sort of CPU quirks.
> >
> > It so
> Mike Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If it's something that can be done as eg. a KLD
> > we might want to do that instead, or through some other mechanism for
> > handling these sort of CPU quirks.
>
> It sounds good. If binary-format quriks is supported, we c
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Baldwin writes:
>*ahem* You might want to read the first paragraph as well. It is
>for situations where one _can't_ update one's BIOS. I don't see why
>making it a tweakable kernel compile time know that is off by
>default would be so incredibly bad. We ha
On 01-Jul-00 Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Smith writes:
>>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, KATO Takenori writ
>>> es:
>>> >The invlpg instruction causes strange signal 11 problem on some
>>> >PentiumPro box. This problem seems to hapen when (1) mother board is
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Wilko Bulte writes:
: Maybe make it conditional via an option in the kernel config file?
: Off by default of course. Looking at LINT/NOTES I see very obscure things
: for Cyrix and Bluelightning CPUs already.
I was going to make that same argument. There's a need t
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, KATO Takenori writ
es:
>Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Look at the first paragraph: This is for Pentium Pro cpus running
>> in motherboards where the BIOS does not contain the needed microcode
>> updates.
>
>I have one question. Does microcode u
Mike Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If it's something that can be done as eg. a KLD
> we might want to do that instead, or through some other mechanism for
> handling these sort of CPU quirks.
It sounds good. If binary-format quriks is supported, we can supply
upda
Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Look at the first paragraph: This is for Pentium Pro cpus running
> in motherboards where the BIOS does not contain the needed microcode
> updates.
I have one question. Does microcode update modify a CPU permanently?
I used a CPU on the M/B with c
> Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If we are talking about errata #34 the correct solution is to not use
> > 4MB pages.
>
> Is FreeBSD #29-safe?
variable MTTRs are set as follows:
MSR (200): 0006
MSR (201): 000ffc000800
MSR (202): 0406
MSR (203): 00
> in stepping sB0 (cpuid = 0x619). I have both sA0 (cpuid = 0x617) and
> sB0 steppings and the signal 11 problem occurs only with the sA0
> stepping.
Oops, sA0 -> sA1 and sB0 -> sB1.
---+--+
KATO Takenori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |
Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we are talking about errata #34 the correct solution is to not use
> 4MB pages.
Is FreeBSD #29-safe?
---+--+
KATO Takenori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |FreeBSD |
Dept
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, KATO Takenori writ
es:
>Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I'm against this patch. This is so specific and marginal to a
>> out-of-spec hardware configuration, that it should not be put in
>> the FreeBSD tree.
>
>I'm not 100% sure but I think the sig
Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm against this patch. This is so specific and marginal to a
> out-of-spec hardware configuration, that it should not be put in
> the FreeBSD tree.
I'm not 100% sure but I think the signal 11 problem is result from the
CPU errata. There is the in
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Wilko Bulte writes:
>> >Maybe make it conditional via an option in the kernel config file?
>> >Off by default of course. Looking at LINT/NOTES I see very obscure things
>> >for Cyrix and Bluelightning CPUs already.
>>
>> But Wilko,
>>
>> Those hacks are because t
On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 11:27:37AM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Wilko Bulte writes:
>
> >> Look at the first paragraph: This is for Pentium Pro cpus running
> >> in motherboards where the BIOS does not contain the needed microcode
> >> updates.
> >>
> >> The
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Wilko Bulte writes:
>> Look at the first paragraph: This is for Pentium Pro cpus running
>> in motherboards where the BIOS does not contain the needed microcode
>> updates.
>>
>> The patch disables invlpg on all cpuid's < 0x619, despite the fact
>> that they work
On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 09:55:03AM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Smith writes:
> >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, KATO Takenori writ
> >> es:
> >> >The invlpg instruction causes strange signal 11 problem on some
> >> >PentiumPro box. This problem seems t
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Smith writes:
>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, KATO Takenori writ
>> es:
>> >The invlpg instruction causes strange signal 11 problem on some
>> >PentiumPro box. This problem seems to hapen when (1) mother board is
>> >very old and (2) BIOS update is not avai
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, KATO Takenori writ
> es:
> >The invlpg instruction causes strange signal 11 problem on some
> >PentiumPro box. This problem seems to hapen when (1) mother board is
> >very old and (2) BIOS update is not available and (3) cpuid < 0x619.
> >
> >Following patch auto
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, KATO Takenori writ
es:
>The invlpg instruction causes strange signal 11 problem on some
>PentiumPro box. This problem seems to hapen when (1) mother board is
>very old and (2) BIOS update is not available and (3) cpuid < 0x619.
>
>Following patch automatically disa
The invlpg instruction causes strange signal 11 problem on some
PentiumPro box. This problem seems to hapen when (1) mother board is
very old and (2) BIOS update is not available and (3) cpuid < 0x619.
Following patch automatically disables invlpg when PentiumPro with
cpuid < 0x619 is found.
Pl
25 matches
Mail list logo
