Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 00:37:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 00:37:31 -0400 Received: from geos.coastside.net ([207.213.212.4]:14024 "EHLO geos.coastside.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 00:37:12 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <9igkjl$nk1$1@cesium.transmeta.com> In-Reply-To: <3B4BC5C0.BDDC12A6@home.com> <9igkjl$nk1$1@cesium.transmeta.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:37:05 -0700 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Jonathan Lundell Subject: Re: Discrepancies between /proc/cpuinfo and Dave J's x86info Cc: Jordan , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org At 9:27 PM -0700 2001-07-10, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > According to Dave J's utility the cpu's appear to be exactly the same >> just as the Intel boxes said when I bought them. What might be causing >> these values to be different. And if the BIOS is setting things up >> incorrectly then why does Dave J's utility show the correct values? >> Thanks for any help. >> > >/proc/cpuinfo shows "cooked" values which may be modified by the >kernel, depending on what it knows about CPU errata or kernel >capabilities. Max cpuid level doesn't get cooked by the kernel, though (at least not in 2.4.6). Level 3 is the Intel's CPU serial number "feature". Didn't Intel back off on that? Maybe that has something to do with it, and perhaps the utility is doing the cooking. -- /Jonathan Lundell. - 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/