linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] x86: Limit the number of processor bootup messages

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

Date:	Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:15:59 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>,
	Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] x86: Limit the number of processor bootup messages


* Mike Travis <travis@....com> wrote:

> +++ linux/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> @@ -671,6 +671,27 @@
>  	complete(&c_idle->done);
>  }
>  
> +/* reduce the number of lines printed when booting a large cpu count system */
> +static void __cpuinit announce_cpu(int cpu, int apicid)
> +{
> +	if (system_state == SYSTEM_BOOTING) {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> +		static int current_node = -1;
> +		int node = cpu_to_node(cpu);
> +
> +		if (node != current_node) {
> +			if (current_node > (-1))
> +				pr_cont(" Ok.\n");
> +			current_node = node;
> +			pr_info("Booting Node %3d, Processors ", node);
> +		}
> +		pr_cont(" #%d%s", cpu, cpu == (nr_cpu_ids - 1) ? " Ok.\n" : "");
> +		return;
> +#endif
> +	}

That's pretty ugly. (the #ifdef is at the wrong nesting level to begin 
with)

Also, cannot we print out the same thing with no #ifdef variances? Users 
of UP systems wont be confused by a 'Node 0, CPU 0' message and in 5 
years most x86 people will be running NUMA systems.

	Ingo
--
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/