| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:23:05 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
huawei.libin@...wei.com, wangyijing@...wei.com,
fenghua.yu@...el.com, tglx@...utronix.de, guohanjun@...wei.com,
paul.gortmaker@...driver.com, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: Cleanup boot CPUs table
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 10:25:42AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Could we, with another add-on patch, further compress the first half
> of the output as well?
>
> Advanced output like this would be really cool:
Sure.
> > [ 0.074509] x86: Booting node #0, CPUs: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7
> > [ 0.644008] x86: Booting node #1, CPUs: #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15
> > [ 1.245006] x86: Booting node #2, CPUs: #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23
> > [ 1.864005] x86: Booting node #3, CPUs: #24 #25 #26 #27 #28 #29 #30 #31
> > [ 2.489005] x86: Booting node #4, CPUs: #32 #33 #34 #35 #36 #37 #38 #39
> > [ 3.093005] x86: Booting node #5, CPUs: #40 #41 #42 #43 #44 #45 #46 #47
> > [ 3.698005] x86: Booting node #6, CPUs: #48 #49 #50 #51 #52 #53 #54 #55
> > [ 4.304005] x86: Booting node #7, CPUs: #56 #57 #58 #59 #60 #61 #62 #63
> > [ 4.961413] x86: Booted up 8 nodes, 64 CPUs
Boot(ing|ed) kinda wastes unnecessary space too, how about we go a step
further:
[ 0.074509] x86: Booting SMP configuration:
[ 0.644008] .... node #0, CPUs: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7
[ 1.245006] .... node #1, CPUs: #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15
[ 1.864005] .... node #2, CPUs: #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23
[ 2.489005] .... node #3, CPUs: #24 #25 #26 #27 #28 #29 #30 #31
[ 3.093005] .... node #4, CPUs: #32 #33 #34 #35 #36 #37 #38 #39
[ 3.698005] .... node #5, CPUs: #40 #41 #42 #43 #44 #45 #46 #47
[ 4.304005] .... node #6, CPUs: #48 #49 #50 #51 #52 #53 #54 #55
[ 4.961413] .... node #7, CPUs: #56 #57 #58 #59 #60 #61 #62 #63
[ 5.245021] x86: Booted up 8 nodes, 64 CPUs
> > [ 0.072367] x86: Booting node #0, CPUs: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7
> > [ 0.686329] x86: Booted up 1 node, 8 CPUs
vs
[ 0.074509] x86: Booting SMP configuration:
[ 0.072367] .... node #0, CPUs: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7
[ 0.686329] x86: Booted up 1 node, 8 CPUs
Btw, the "x86" prefix would mean we want to either change pr_fmt() of
arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c (which I rather not) or not use pr_info (which
I'd prefer).
> Note the typographical details I added:
>
> - I added an extra space after 'CPUs:' to make the table stand out
> better from far away
Ok.
> - Removed the 'OK' - it really does not add any more information than
> the newline already does
Yes.
> - Changed the 'Brought up' message to be more consistent with the prior
> messages.
Ok.
> - Added nodes count to the 'Booted up' line. Since we count nodes and
> CPUs, we might as well want to demonstrate our superior counting
> skills and print out both.
Haha, ok.
> - The 'node' counting uses the new num_digits() function - this was very
> easy to implement in my mockup ;-)
Ok.
> - Note the singular spelling of 'node' in the 1-node case. Again this
> was easy in the mockup!
Should be easy to do :)
So how about the even shorter mockup above?
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists