Hi,
dmesg indicates my CPU has the Pentium F0 0F bug...
Initializing CPU#0 CPU 0 irqstacks, hard=c041e000 soft=c041f000 PID hash table entries: 1024 (order: 10, 16384 bytes) Detected 232.300 MHz processor. Using tsc for high-res timesource Console: colour dummy device 80x25 Dentry cache hash table entries: 32768 (order: 5, 131072 bytes) Inode-cache hash table entries: 16384 (order: 4, 65536 bytes) Memory: 124684k/131072k available (2212k kernel code, 5888k reserved, 752k data, 200k init, 0k highmem) Checking if this processor honours the WP bit even in supervisor mode... Ok. Calibrating delay using timer specific routine.. 465.42 BogoMIPS (lpj=930843) Security Framework v1.0.0 initialized SELinux: Disabled at boot. Capability LSM initialized Mount-cache hash table entries: 512 CPU: After generic identify, caps: 008001bf 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 CPU: After vendor identify, caps: 008001bf 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 *Intel Pentium with F0 0F bug - workaround enabled.* CPU: After all inits, caps: 008001bf 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 CPU: Intel Pentium MMX stepping 03 Checking 'hlt' instruction... OK.
But looking at /proc/cpuinfo indicates the opposite:
processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 5 model : 4 model name : Pentium MMX stepping : 3 cpu MHz : 232.300 fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no *f00f_bug : no* coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 1 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr mce cx8 mmx bogomips : 465.42
Think there may be a bug in cpuinfo, because I'm sure I remember it used to say yes for the f00f_bug.
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
Stu.
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 03:15:17AM +0100, 0 wrote:
Hi,
dmesg indicates my CPU has the Pentium F0 0F bug...
Initializing CPU#0 CPU 0 irqstacks, hard=c041e000 soft=c041f000 PID hash table entries: 1024 (order: 10, 16384 bytes) Detected 232.300 MHz processor. Using tsc for high-res timesource Console: colour dummy device 80x25 Dentry cache hash table entries: 32768 (order: 5, 131072 bytes) Inode-cache hash table entries: 16384 (order: 4, 65536 bytes) Memory: 124684k/131072k available (2212k kernel code, 5888k reserved, 752k data, 200k init, 0k highmem) Checking if this processor honours the WP bit even in supervisor mode... Ok. Calibrating delay using timer specific routine.. 465.42 BogoMIPS (lpj=930843) Security Framework v1.0.0 initialized SELinux: Disabled at boot. Capability LSM initialized Mount-cache hash table entries: 512 CPU: After generic identify, caps: 008001bf 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 CPU: After vendor identify, caps: 008001bf 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 *Intel Pentium with F0 0F bug - workaround enabled.* CPU: After all inits, caps: 008001bf 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 CPU: Intel Pentium MMX stepping 03 Checking 'hlt' instruction... OK.
But looking at /proc/cpuinfo indicates the opposite:
processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 5 model : 4 model name : Pentium MMX stepping : 3 cpu MHz : 232.300 fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no *f00f_bug : no* coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 1 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr mce cx8 mmx bogomips : 465.42
Think there may be a bug in cpuinfo, because I'm sure I remember it used to say yes for the f00f_bug.
Any thoughts?
Please file a bugzilla on this. And mention which kernel version you're running. (Be sure to try the newest too).
Dave
On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 22:24 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 03:15:17AM +0100, 0 wrote:
Hi,
dmesg indicates my CPU has the Pentium F0 0F bug...
But looking at /proc/cpuinfo indicates the opposite:
Please file a bugzilla on this. And mention which kernel version you're running. (Be sure to try the newest too).
For me, both kernel-2.6.17-1.2139_FC5 kernel-2.6.16-1.2122_FC5 expose this problem.
Ralf
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 22:24 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 03:15:17AM +0100, 0 wrote:
Hi,
dmesg indicates my CPU has the Pentium F0 0F bug...
But looking at /proc/cpuinfo indicates the opposite:
Please file a bugzilla on this. And mention which kernel version you're running. (Be sure to try the newest too).
For me, both kernel-2.6.17-1.2139_FC5 kernel-2.6.16-1.2122_FC5 expose this problem.
Ralf
OK, what component do I report the bug against in bugzilla? is it a kernel problem?
Cheers,
Stu.
On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 03:24:08AM +0100, 0 wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
dmesg indicates my CPU has the Pentium F0 0F bug... But looking at /proc/cpuinfo indicates the opposite:
Please file a bugzilla on this. And mention which kernel version you're running. (Be sure to try the newest too).
kernel-2.6.17-1.2139_FC5 kernel-2.6.16-1.2122_FC5 expose this problem.
OK, what component do I report the bug against in bugzilla? is it a kernel problem?
yes.
Dave
On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 03:15 +0100, 0 wrote:
Hi,
dmesg indicates my CPU has the Pentium F0 0F bug...
But looking at /proc/cpuinfo indicates the opposite:
processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 5 model : 4 model name : Pentium MMX stepping : 3 cpu MHz : 232.300 fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no *f00f_bug : no* coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 1 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr mce cx8 mmx bogomips : 465.42
Think there may be a bug in cpuinfo, because I'm sure I remember it used to say yes for the f00f_bug.
Any thoughts?
Interesting - Your remark caused me to check my ca. 10 years old i586, who had been reported to suffer from the f00f bug since it exists, and ... I am observing the same.
I'd say file a bug into bugzilla.
Ralf
-
0 -
Dave Jones -
Ralf Corsepius