[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJvTdKm2PLZm8ZxV2+TBn9aSrdmeZuuNB5VBeixU+JemGSnpgA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 May 2015 04:46:17 -0400
From: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Jan H. Schönherr <jschoenh@...zon.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Anthony Liguori <aliguori@...zon.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Tim Deegan <tim@....org>,
Gang Wei <gang.wei@...el.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: skip delays during SMP initialization similar to Xen
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 2:44 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>> BTW. this time can be reduced by 7% (113 ms) by deleting
>> announce_cpu():
>>
>> [ 1.445815] x86: Booted up 4 nodes, 120 CPUs
>
> so that kind of info looks pretty useful, especially when there's
> hangs/failures.
I think the messages we print on failure are useful.
I think the success case should be a 1-line summary.
> I'm wondering what takes 113 msecs to print 120 CPUs -
> that's about 1 msec per a few chars of printk produced, seems
> excessive. Do you have any idea what's going on there? Does your
> system print to a serial console perhaps?
Yes, serial console -- that server is actually much
closer to you than it is to me, it is in Finland:-)
I should benchmark it, because 115200 should be faster...
cheers,
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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