linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Boottime: A tool for automatic measurement of kernel/bootloader boot time

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]

Message-Id: <201210121353.16798.arnd@arndb.de>
Date:	Fri, 12 Oct 2012 13:53:16 +0000
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	"Russell King - ARM Linux" <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linus.walleij@...ricsson.com,
	Jonas Aaberg <jonas.aberg@...ricsson.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Mian Yousaf Kaukab <mian.yousaf.kaukab@...ricsson.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Boottime: A tool for automatic measurement of kernel/bootloader boot time

On Friday 12 October 2012, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > root@ME:/ cat /sys/kernel/debug/boottime/bootgraph
> > [    0.185254] calling  splash+0x0/0x0
> > [    2.984335] initcall splash+0x0/0x0 returned 0 after 2799 msecs.
> > [    2.984335] calling  autoboot_delay+0x0/0x0
> > [    4.089513] initcall autoboot_delay+0x0/0x0 returned 0 after 1105 msecs.
> > [    4.089513] calling  load_kernel+0x0/0x0
> > [    4.239174] initcall load_kernel+0x0/0x0 returned 0 after 149 msecs.
> > [    4.239174] calling  boot_kernel+0x0/0x0
> > [    4.276260] initcall boot_kernel+0x0/0x0 returned 0 after 37 msecs.
> > [    4.276260] calling  uncompress_ll_init+0x0/0x0
> > [    4.276260] initcall uncompress_ll_init+0x0/0x0 returned 0 after 0 msecs.
> > [    4.276260] Freeing init memory: 0K
> 
> Umm, what happened to sysfs not becoming procfs v2?  I thought we had
> a fairly strict requirement for "one value per file and not nicely
> formatted" for sysfs?
> 

I was thinking the same thing at first, but then I noticed it's actually
debugfs, which has no such rules.

	Arnd
--
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/