[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ac3eb2510903020829s7c876a96y7eb5568eeb9921fd@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:29:57 +0100
From: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: Andreas Robinson <andr345@...il.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, sam@...nborg.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] module, kbuild: Faster boot with custom kernel.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 17:20, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> wrote:
>> A monolithic kernel with parallelized initcalls is better - about 200
>> ms faster than parallel insmods on my test system. However, it comes
>> with a fairly large set of changes:
>>
>> * First, you need a 200-line patch in init/main.c (do_initcalls() and
>> friends)
>
> why?
> We already have async function calls; and those speed up my boot (when
> enabled) significantly, by doing much of the kernel/driver init in
> parallel.
>
> My server box boots the whole kernel (including all drivers; I build
> verything in) in 0.56 seconds, and my net books do it in around 1.0
> seconds.
>
>>
>> * Then the built-in module dependencies must be calculated properly,
>> eg with a modified depmod, and added to the build process.
>
> nope not if done right
>
>> So, what do you think, should I keep going? IMHO, the slower userspace
>> implementation is acceptable since it's so much simpler.
>
> I would strongly suggest that you turn on the async function calls and
> look at the boot graph of the resulting kernel boot... if you send
> that to me I can also take a look and make suggestions....
The "fastboot" kernel commandline option was used, as mentioned in the
mail. Is there anything else?
Thanks,
Kay
--
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