From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 18 11:02:52 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0EC5106566C for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 11:02:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@t41t.com) Received: from ehlo.cat.pdx.edu (unknown [IPv6:2610:10:20:208:2e0:81ff:fe5d:b360]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96C248FC13 for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 11:02:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from nemo.ece.pdx.edu (root@nemo.ece.pdx.edu [131.252.209.162]) by ehlo.cat.pdx.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id p2IB2nVJ022756 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 04:02:49 -0700 Received: from nemo.ece.pdx.edu (tait@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nemo.ece.pdx.edu (8.13.6/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p2IB2nfO009124 for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 04:02:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from tait@localhost) by nemo.ece.pdx.edu (8.13.6/8.12.6/Submit) id p2IB2m3V009121 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 04:02:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: nemo.ece.pdx.edu: tait set sender to freebsd@t41t.com using -f Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 04:02:48 -0700 From: Tait To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20110318110248.GG10069@ece.pdx.edu> References: <20110317213336.GF10069@ece.pdx.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110317213336.GF10069@ece.pdx.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.3.4 (ehlo.cat.pdx.edu [131.252.208.106]); Fri, 18 Mar 2011 04:02:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=6.0 tests=WCODE_3,WJAVA_2 autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ehlo.cat.pdx.edu X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.96.5 at ehlo X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [solved] How to tell whether CPU supports x64? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 11:02:52 -0000 The original system... I said (on 2011/03/17): > CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.40GHz (2387.76-MHz 686-class CPU) > Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0xf29 Stepping = 9 > Features=0xbfebfbff > Features2=0x4400> > Logical CPUs per core: 2 > FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 2 CPUs > cpu0 (BSP): APIC ID: 0 > cpu1 (AP): APIC ID: 1 Adam Vande More replied (on 2011/03/17): > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Ilya Kazakevich wrote: > > Afaik there should be "LM" in "AMD features" output. Even for Intel. Grep > > your dmesg.boot for LM. > > yes that is correct, LM stands for Long Mode which indicates amd64 support. > If your CPU doesn't list it, it's either a 32 bit only CPU, or it's a bug. Thanks everyone for the assistance. There is no LM feature in dmesg.boot for the system in question, although a different system reports: CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5520 @ 2.27GHz (2261.03-MHz 686-class CPU) Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0x106a5 Stepping = 5 Features=0x1781fbff Features2=0x80182201> AMD Features=0x20100000 AMD Features2=0x1 Cores per package: 16 Logical CPUs per core: 2 The Intel site does say the E5520 supports x64. It seems the lack of LM in the original system does in fact mean it's a 32-bit only processor. John Levine replied (on 2011/03/17): > Looking at the Intel web site, the only Xeon I see that runs at 2.4GHz > and has two cores with two threads is the Xeon 3060, which does indeed > provide the 64 bit instruction set. I looked at the ark.intel.com site hoping to find what processor would report Id = 0xf29 Stepping = 9. I had no luck. I think the dual processors is because of HyperThreading, as indicated by the HTT feature, and that it's actually only a single core. Devin Teske replied (on 2011/03/17): > I wrote this for the job (please, suggestions/comments very welcome): > #include /* printf(3) */ > #include /* EXIT_SUCCESS exit(3) */ > ... I tried the program, and it reports "x86_64 support: NO" on both the original system, and the one above that appears to be x64-capable (although it is running the i386 install, which may be why?). Again, thanks all for the help.