On 07/04/2013 11:46 AM, Ben Widawsky wrote: > On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 08:43:58PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net> wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 08:14:41PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 11:02:07AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: >>>>> To make users life a little easier figuring out what they have on their >>>>> system. >>>>> >>>>> Ideally, I'd really like to report LLC size, but it turned out to be a >>>>> bit of a pain. Maybe I'll revisit it in the future. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net> >>>> >>>> I think a getparam for eLLC would be neat, so that usespace can use it to >>>> tune working set sizes. >>>> -Daniel >>>> >>> And I assume drop debugfs? >> >> Yeah, I guess the DRM_INFO message in dmesg should be good enough >> then. For userspace's convenience we could even look into exposing the >> LLC size with a getparam. >> -Daniel >> > > I would like to do this since we have easy access to cpuid. I know Chad > really wants it. If you'll accept the patch, I'll write it. I really want to know the cache sizes. Actually, I didn't expect the kernel to do this for me. So, I've prototyped a patch for Mesa to probe the cache sizes with CPUID. If the kernel does that for Mesa, then I can likely drop my Mesa patch.
