[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ea92b4fb-a1c9-a961-b67e-7834e351d6e1@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 10:22:53 -0700
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
alek.du@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] printk: Enable platform to provide a early boot clock
On 05/31/2018 12:18 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 12:20 PM, Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com> wrote:
>> Currently printk timestamp mostly come from the sched_clock which
>> depends on the clock setup, so there are many kernel logs started
>> with "[ 0.000000] " before the clock is calibrated.
>>
>> This patch will provide an debug option for specific platform to
>> provide a early boot time clock, so that we can have time info in
>> kernel log much earlier, which can show the time info for the early
>> kernel boot, and make boottime tuning/optimization easier (boot time
>> is critical for phone/tablet and embedded devices).
>>
>> Capable platform only need to setup the "boot_printk_clock_fn"
>> which could return time in nano seconds.
>>
>> Together with a TSC patch on x86 system, we have easily captured
>> some early boottime killer like unwind_init() which takes about
>> 300ms in boot phase.
>
>> +static u64 printk_clock(void)
>> +{
>> + /* If platform provides early boot printk clock, then use it */
>> + if (unlikely(system_state == SYSTEM_BOOTING && boot_printk_clock_fn))
>> + return boot_printk_clock_fn();
>> + else
>> + return local_clock();
>
> 'else' is redundant.
So it is. Is this a style comment?
This shouldn't matter to a smart compiler, should it?
>> +}
thanks,
--
~Randy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists