linux-kernel - Re: slower initcalls in -next

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:24:11 -0700
From:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
To:	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
Cc:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: slower initcalls in -next

On Wed, 2008-08-20 at 09:58 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:

> At least, all alsa_* calls are only for ISA devices, and I don't think
> it's worth to optimize.  Changing such hardcoded delays could break
> the running system easily.
> 
> However, some of the above are definitely interesting to investigate
> as they are mostly built-in and affect almost all people.

I didn't realize it till later , but the list is a little misleading ..
Those times are a mix of execution, and blocking.. I think the top one
(49 seconds!) was blocked most of the time, since ub_init() doesn't look
very complex. I'm not sure if it what it was blocked on, or why ..

Daniel

--
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/