LinuxQuestions.org
Download your favorite Linux distribution at LQ ISO.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Software
User Name
Password
Linux - Software This forum is for Software issues.
Having a problem installing a new program? Want to know which application is best for the job? Post your question in this forum.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 03-11-2014, 10:37 AM   #1
3rensho
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2008
Posts: 59

Rep: Reputation: 0
AMD Microcode


Just noticed that the AMD64 site was back up after a long down time so I grabbed the latest microcode and installed it. I've got an AMD FX-6200 CPU and am running Slackware64-current. After rebooting I see that following in dmesg -

dmesg|grep microcode
[ 6.096501] microcode: CPU0: patch_level=0x06000623
[ 6.256374] microcode: CPU0: new patch_level=0x0600063d
[ 6.241885] microcode: CPU1: patch_level=0x06000623
[ 6.256554] microcode: CPU2: patch_level=0x06000623
[ 6.271080] microcode: CPU2: new patch_level=0x0600063d
[ 6.271164] microcode: CPU3: patch_level=0x06000623
[ 6.271246] microcode: CPU4: patch_level=0x06000623
[ 6.285775] microcode: CPU4: new patch_level=0x0600063d
[ 6.285855] microcode: CPU5: patch_level=0x06000623
[ 6.241885] microcode: Microcode Update Driver: v2.00 <tigran@aivazian.fsnet.co.uk>, Peter Oruba


It looks to me like CPU's 0, 2 and 4 are updating the new code but 1,3 and 5 are not. Am I misinterpreting this output or is something amiss? I'm not sure what it is supposed to look like. Thanks for any help.
 
Old 03-25-2014, 09:27 PM   #2
Ztcoracat
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Distribution: Slackware Vector Linux & CentOS
Posts: 4,105
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 281Reputation: 281Reputation: 281
No you are not misinterpreting the output.
I noticed that 1, 3, and 5 have not been patched/updated.

Sorry I am not good with microcode.
Maybe a member with that type of experience will chime in.

I (think) that maybe a developer has not made additional patches or updates for the new AMD FX-6200.

http://nlug.ml1.co.uk/2013/06/microc...r-devices/4116
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/microcode
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...fs-4175433777/
 
Old 03-26-2014, 12:31 AM   #3
3rensho
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2008
Posts: 59

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Many thanks for your reply and the links. Good info to have.
 
Old 03-26-2014, 12:35 AM   #4
Ztcoracat
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Distribution: Slackware Vector Linux & CentOS
Posts: 4,105
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 281Reputation: 281Reputation: 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rensho View Post
Many thanks for your reply and the links. Good info to have.
Your very Welcome.

Glad to be a help-
 
Old 03-26-2014, 02:01 AM   #5
273
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 4,369

Rep: Reputation: 995Reputation: 995Reputation: 995Reputation: 995Reputation: 995Reputation: 995Reputation: 995Reputation: 995
My CPU only seems to have the first 4 "cores" patched so you're not the only one:
Code:
dmesg |grep microcode
[    2.144448] microcode: CPU0: patch_level=0x06000629
[    2.144508] microcode: CPU1: patch_level=0x06000629
[    2.144569] microcode: CPU2: patch_level=0x06000629
[    2.144632] microcode: CPU3: patch_level=0x06000629
[    2.144695] microcode: CPU4: patch_level=0x06000629
[    2.144762] microcode: CPU5: patch_level=0x06000629
[    2.144825] microcode: CPU6: patch_level=0x06000629
[    2.144887] microcode: CPU7: patch_level=0x06000629
[    2.146065] microcode: Microcode Update Driver: v2.00 <tigran@aivazian.fsnet.co.uk>, Peter Oruba
[    3.281820] platform microcode: firmware: direct-loading firmware amd-ucode/microcode_amd_fam15h.bin
[    3.291644] microcode: CPU0: new patch_level=0x0600063d
[    3.301433] microcode: CPU1: new patch_level=0x0600063d
[    3.311241] microcode: CPU3: new patch_level=0x0600063d
[    3.319662] microcode: CPU5: new patch_level=0x0600063d
 
Old 03-26-2014, 03:28 PM   #6
Ztcoracat
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Distribution: Slackware Vector Linux & CentOS
Posts: 4,105
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 281Reputation: 281Reputation: 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by 273 View Post
My CPU only seems to have the first 4 "cores" patched so you're not the only one:
Code:
dmesg |grep microcode
[    2.144448] microcode: CPU0: patch_level=0x06000629
[    2.144508] microcode: CPU1: patch_level=0x06000629
[    2.144569] microcode: CPU2: patch_level=0x06000629
[    2.144632] microcode: CPU3: patch_level=0x06000629
[    2.144695] microcode: CPU4: patch_level=0x06000629
[    2.144762] microcode: CPU5: patch_level=0x06000629
[    2.144825] microcode: CPU6: patch_level=0x06000629
[    2.144887] microcode: CPU7: patch_level=0x06000629
[    2.146065] microcode: Microcode Update Driver: v2.00 <tigran@aivazian.fsnet.co.uk>, Peter Oruba
[    3.281820] platform microcode: firmware: direct-loading firmware amd-ucode/microcode_amd_fam15h.bin
[    3.291644] microcode: CPU0: new patch_level=0x0600063d
[    3.301433] microcode: CPU1: new patch_level=0x0600063d
[    3.311241] microcode: CPU3: new patch_level=0x0600063d
[    3.319662] microcode: CPU5: new patch_level=0x0600063d
I see--
Thanks for chiming in 273!-

I'm not sure if patching for microcode is a similar practice as patching the kernel.
IF I have time I'll study it.
 
Old 03-26-2014, 08:59 PM   #7
gradinaruvasile
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2010
Location: Cluj, Romania
Distribution: Debian Testing
Posts: 539

Rep: Reputation: 105Reputation: 105
I noticed this too. I assumed that its like this because the patching is done at module, not core level.
 
Old 03-27-2014, 01:57 AM   #8
273
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 4,369

Rep: Reputation: 995Reputation: 995Reputation: 995Reputation: 995Reputation: 995Reputation: 995Reputation: 995Reputation: 995
Quote:
Originally Posted by gradinaruvasile View Post
I noticed this too. I assumed that its like this because the patching is done at module, not core level.
That could well be it, however, the previous patches seem to be applied to all cores. Perhaps this one is per module.
 
Old 03-27-2014, 09:39 PM   #9
Ztcoracat
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Distribution: Slackware Vector Linux & CentOS
Posts: 4,105
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 281Reputation: 281Reputation: 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by 273 View Post
That could well be it, however, the previous patches seem to be applied to all cores. Perhaps this one is per module.
Neat!
How many moudules = the core? (or) equal one core?
 
Old 03-28-2014, 02:02 AM   #10
273
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 4,369

Rep: Reputation: 995Reputation: 995Reputation: 995Reputation: 995Reputation: 995Reputation: 995Reputation: 995Reputation: 995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ztcoracat View Post
Neat!
How many moudules = the core? (or) equal one core?
Each module contains 2 "cores" so in the FX-6200 there are three modules meaning 6 "cores" and in the FX-8120 there are 4 modules meaning 8 "cores".
 
Old 03-28-2014, 06:14 PM   #11
Ztcoracat
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Distribution: Slackware Vector Linux & CentOS
Posts: 4,105
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 281Reputation: 281Reputation: 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by 273 View Post
Each module contains 2 "cores" so in the FX-6200 there are three modules meaning 6 "cores" and in the FX-8120 there are 4 modules meaning 8 "cores".
So the number of modules determines the number of cores?

Or to better understand perhaps I should go look up the Fx-6200 (to find out how you knew it had 3 cores) and compare it to the Fx-8120 and read the spec's- This is intresting--
 
Old 03-28-2014, 06:20 PM   #12
273
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 4,369

Rep: Reputation: 995Reputation: 995Reputation: 995Reputation: 995Reputation: 995Reputation: 995Reputation: 995Reputation: 995
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...icroprocessors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldo...Bulldozer_core
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 03-28-2014, 06:46 PM   #13
Ztcoracat
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Distribution: Slackware Vector Linux & CentOS
Posts: 4,105
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 281Reputation: 281Reputation: 281
Thanks!
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[SOLVED] Cannot remove Microcode completely decenter Linux - Desktop 6 12-09-2013 12:17 AM
Updating CPU Microcode in LFS stoat Linux From Scratch 8 04-02-2013 04:48 AM
[SOLVED] About CMC and CPU Microcode? ErEn Linux - Hardware 3 10-21-2011 09:17 AM
Microcode leedude Linux - Hardware 1 12-16-2007 04:39 AM
speedtouch usb modem microcode Matt_UK Linux - Hardware 2 10-29-2003 04:19 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:17 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration