LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* boot_delay broken ? @ 2008-02-24 0:46 Dave Jones 2008-02-25 2:14 ` Dave Young 2008-02-27 9:19 ` Pavel Machek 0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Dave Jones @ 2008-02-24 0:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linux Kernel; +Cc: Thomas Gleixner The boot_delay switch seems to be behaving strangely in the current -git. Setting it to =10 makes the output 'bursty' it becomes slow for some printk's whilst others scroll by at regular speed. Setting it any higher than that seems to make it pause for a really long time before it outputs any text at all. x86 timer changes perhaps ? Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: boot_delay broken ? 2008-02-24 0:46 boot_delay broken ? Dave Jones @ 2008-02-25 2:14 ` Dave Young 2008-02-26 5:22 ` Randy Dunlap 2008-02-27 9:19 ` Pavel Machek 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Dave Young @ 2008-02-25 2:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Jones, Linux Kernel, Thomas Gleixner On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk> wrote: > The boot_delay switch seems to be behaving strangely in the > current -git. Setting it to =10 makes the output 'bursty' > it becomes slow for some printk's whilst others scroll by > at regular speed. > Setting it any higher than that seems to make it pause for > a really long time before it outputs any text at all. On my side there's this issue for a long time http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/8/79 > > x86 timer changes perhaps ? > > Dave > > -- > http://www.codemonkey.org.uk > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: boot_delay broken ? 2008-02-25 2:14 ` Dave Young @ 2008-02-26 5:22 ` Randy Dunlap 2008-02-26 5:48 ` Dave Young 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Randy Dunlap @ 2008-02-26 5:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Young, akpm; +Cc: Dave Jones, Linux Kernel, Thomas Gleixner On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:14:36 +0800 Dave Young wrote: > On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk> wrote: > > The boot_delay switch seems to be behaving strangely in the > > current -git. Setting it to =10 makes the output 'bursty' > > it becomes slow for some printk's whilst others scroll by > > at regular speed. > > Setting it any higher than that seems to make it pause for > > a really long time before it outputs any text at all. > > On my side there's this issue for a long time > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/8/79 [http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118655896515049&w=2] You asked questions and they were answered. Perhaps you didn't like the answers. Here's a question for you. What kernel boot options did you use? Specifically, for lpj= and boot_delay= ? > > > > x86 timer changes perhaps ? --- ~Randy ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: boot_delay broken ? 2008-02-26 5:22 ` Randy Dunlap @ 2008-02-26 5:48 ` Dave Young 2008-02-26 5:59 ` Dave Young 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Dave Young @ 2008-02-26 5:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Randy Dunlap; +Cc: akpm, Dave Jones, Linux Kernel, Thomas Gleixner On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> wrote: > On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:14:36 +0800 Dave Young wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk> wrote: > > > The boot_delay switch seems to be behaving strangely in the > > > current -git. Setting it to =10 makes the output 'bursty' > > > it becomes slow for some printk's whilst others scroll by > > > at regular speed. > > > Setting it any higher than that seems to make it pause for > > > a really long time before it outputs any text at all. > > > > On my side there's this issue for a long time > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/8/79 > > [http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118655896515049&w=2] > > You asked questions and they were answered. Perhaps you didn't like > the answers. No, I like it. Thanks. But I still want to know why mdelay can not be used. is it not available for all archs or something else? > > Here's a question for you. What kernel boot options did you use? > Specifically, for lpj= and boot_delay= ? I tried boot_delay=100 and boot_delay=200 without lpj set, The result was really slow. It was better with lpj copied from dmesg, but was still slower then mdelay. I think we can firstly use preset lpj, after delay calibrating just use the system lpj > > > > > > > x86 timer changes perhaps ? > > > --- > ~Randy > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: boot_delay broken ? 2008-02-26 5:48 ` Dave Young @ 2008-02-26 5:59 ` Dave Young 2008-02-26 9:09 ` Dave Young 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Dave Young @ 2008-02-26 5:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Randy Dunlap; +Cc: akpm, Dave Jones, Linux Kernel, Thomas Gleixner On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:14:36 +0800 Dave Young wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk> wrote: > > > > The boot_delay switch seems to be behaving strangely in the > > > > current -git. Setting it to =10 makes the output 'bursty' > > > > it becomes slow for some printk's whilst others scroll by > > > > at regular speed. > > > > Setting it any higher than that seems to make it pause for > > > > a really long time before it outputs any text at all. > > > > > > On my side there's this issue for a long time > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/8/79 > > > > [http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118655896515049&w=2] > > > > You asked questions and they were answered. Perhaps you didn't like > > the answers. > > No, I like it. Thanks. > > But I still want to know why mdelay can not be used. > is it not available for all archs or something else? > > > > > > Here's a question for you. What kernel boot options did you use? > > Specifically, for lpj= and boot_delay= ? > > I tried boot_delay=100 and boot_delay=200 without lpj set, The result > was really slow. It was better with lpj copied from dmesg, but was > still slower then mdelay. Especially at the very beginning after the message "Booting the kernel", I need to wait several minutes to see the afterwards messages > > I think we can firstly use preset lpj, after delay calibrating just > use the system lpj > > > > > > > > > > > > > x86 timer changes perhaps ? > > > > > > --- > > ~Randy > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: boot_delay broken ? 2008-02-26 5:59 ` Dave Young @ 2008-02-26 9:09 ` Dave Young 2008-02-26 17:33 ` Randy Dunlap 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Dave Young @ 2008-02-26 9:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Randy Dunlap; +Cc: akpm, Dave Jones, Linux Kernel, Thomas Gleixner On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 01:59:31PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:14:36 +0800 Dave Young wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk> wrote: > > > > > The boot_delay switch seems to be behaving strangely in the > > > > > current -git. Setting it to =10 makes the output 'bursty' > > > > > it becomes slow for some printk's whilst others scroll by > > > > > at regular speed. > > > > > Setting it any higher than that seems to make it pause for > > > > > a really long time before it outputs any text at all. > > > > > > > > On my side there's this issue for a long time > > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/8/79 > > > > > > [http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118655896515049&w=2] > > > > > > You asked questions and they were answered. Perhaps you didn't like > > > the answers. > > > > No, I like it. Thanks. > > > > But I still want to know why mdelay can not be used. > > is it not available for all archs or something else? > > > > > > > > > > Here's a question for you. What kernel boot options did you use? > > > Specifically, for lpj= and boot_delay= ? > > > > I tried boot_delay=100 and boot_delay=200 without lpj set, The result > > was really slow. It was better with lpj copied from dmesg, but was > > still slower then mdelay. > > Especially at the very beginning after the message "Booting the kernel", > I need to wait several minutes to see the afterwards messages > > > > > I think we can firstly use preset lpj, after delay calibrating just > > use the system lpj > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > x86 timer changes perhaps ? > > > > > > > > > --- > > > ~Randy > > > > > How about use loops_per_jiffy as following? With this patch at least for me the very long delay at the very begining does not occur. kernel/printk.c | 15 ++++----------- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff -upr linux/kernel/printk.c linux.new/kernel/printk.c --- linux/kernel/printk.c 2008-02-26 16:54:23.000000000 +0800 +++ linux.new/kernel/printk.c 2008-02-26 16:59:02.000000000 +0800 @@ -173,24 +173,14 @@ __setup("log_buf_len=", log_buf_len_setu #ifdef CONFIG_BOOT_PRINTK_DELAY static unsigned int boot_delay; /* msecs delay after each printk during bootup */ -static unsigned long long printk_delay_msec; /* per msec, based on boot_delay */ static int __init boot_delay_setup(char *str) { - unsigned long lpj; - unsigned long long loops_per_msec; - - lpj = preset_lpj ? preset_lpj : 1000000; /* some guess */ - loops_per_msec = (unsigned long long)lpj / 1000 * HZ; - get_option(&str, &boot_delay); if (boot_delay > 10 * 1000) boot_delay = 0; - printk_delay_msec = loops_per_msec; - printk(KERN_DEBUG "boot_delay: %u, preset_lpj: %ld, lpj: %lu, " - "HZ: %d, printk_delay_msec: %llu\n", - boot_delay, preset_lpj, lpj, HZ, printk_delay_msec); + printk(KERN_DEBUG "boot_delay: %u\n", boot_delay); return 1; } __setup("boot_delay=", boot_delay_setup); @@ -199,6 +189,9 @@ static void boot_delay_msec(void) { unsigned long long k; unsigned long timeout; + unsigned long long printk_delay_msec; + + printk_delay_msec = (unsigned long long)loops_per_jiffy / 1000 * HZ; if (boot_delay == 0 || system_state != SYSTEM_BOOTING) return; ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: boot_delay broken ? 2008-02-26 9:09 ` Dave Young @ 2008-02-26 17:33 ` Randy Dunlap 2008-02-27 2:01 ` Dave Young 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Randy Dunlap @ 2008-02-26 17:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Young; +Cc: akpm, Dave Jones, Linux Kernel, Thomas Gleixner On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:09:48 +0800 Dave Young wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 01:59:31PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:14:36 +0800 Dave Young wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk> wrote: > > > > > > The boot_delay switch seems to be behaving strangely in the > > > > > > current -git. Setting it to =10 makes the output 'bursty' > > > > > > it becomes slow for some printk's whilst others scroll by > > > > > > at regular speed. > > > > > > Setting it any higher than that seems to make it pause for > > > > > > a really long time before it outputs any text at all. > > > > > > > > > > On my side there's this issue for a long time > > > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/8/79 > > > > > > > > [http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118655896515049&w=2] > > > > > > > > You asked questions and they were answered. Perhaps you didn't like > > > > the answers. > > > > > > No, I like it. Thanks. > > > > > > But I still want to know why mdelay can not be used. > > > is it not available for all archs or something else? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's a question for you. What kernel boot options did you use? > > > > Specifically, for lpj= and boot_delay= ? > > > > > > I tried boot_delay=100 and boot_delay=200 without lpj set, The result > > > was really slow. It was better with lpj copied from dmesg, but was > > > still slower then mdelay. > > > > Especially at the very beginning after the message "Booting the kernel", > > I need to wait several minutes to see the afterwards messages > > > > > > > > I think we can firstly use preset lpj, after delay calibrating just > > > use the system lpj > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > x86 timer changes perhaps ? > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > ~Randy > > > > > > > > > How about use loops_per_jiffy as following? With this patch at least > for me the very long delay at the very begining does not occur. > > kernel/printk.c | 15 ++++----------- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > diff -upr linux/kernel/printk.c linux.new/kernel/printk.c > --- linux/kernel/printk.c 2008-02-26 16:54:23.000000000 +0800 > +++ linux.new/kernel/printk.c 2008-02-26 16:59:02.000000000 +0800 > @@ -173,24 +173,14 @@ __setup("log_buf_len=", log_buf_len_setu > #ifdef CONFIG_BOOT_PRINTK_DELAY > > static unsigned int boot_delay; /* msecs delay after each printk during bootup */ > -static unsigned long long printk_delay_msec; /* per msec, based on boot_delay */ > > static int __init boot_delay_setup(char *str) > { > - unsigned long lpj; > - unsigned long long loops_per_msec; > - > - lpj = preset_lpj ? preset_lpj : 1000000; /* some guess */ > - loops_per_msec = (unsigned long long)lpj / 1000 * HZ; > - > get_option(&str, &boot_delay); > if (boot_delay > 10 * 1000) > boot_delay = 0; > > - printk_delay_msec = loops_per_msec; > - printk(KERN_DEBUG "boot_delay: %u, preset_lpj: %ld, lpj: %lu, " > - "HZ: %d, printk_delay_msec: %llu\n", > - boot_delay, preset_lpj, lpj, HZ, printk_delay_msec); > + printk(KERN_DEBUG "boot_delay: %u\n", boot_delay); > return 1; > } > __setup("boot_delay=", boot_delay_setup); > @@ -199,6 +189,9 @@ static void boot_delay_msec(void) > { > unsigned long long k; > unsigned long timeout; > + unsigned long long printk_delay_msec; > + > + printk_delay_msec = (unsigned long long)loops_per_jiffy / 1000 * HZ; > > if (boot_delay == 0 || system_state != SYSTEM_BOOTING) > return; > -- Hi Dave, That might work, but IMO it requires someone to audit all architectures to make sure that loops_per_jiffy has been calibrated at that point in time (as I mentioned in http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/11/153). I didn't do that and you said that you tested i386 only. Maybe you can get Andrew to merge it into -mm for testing... However, setting boot_delay=N without setting lpj=M is just not advisable. The Kconfig help text for BOOT_PRINTK_DELAY tries to say that. Maybe it needs to be stronger? It is likely that you would also need to use "lpj=M" to preset the "loops per jiffie" value. See a previous boot log for the "lpj" value to use for your system, and then set "lpj=M" before setting "boot_delay=N". --- ~Randy ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: boot_delay broken ? 2008-02-26 17:33 ` Randy Dunlap @ 2008-02-27 2:01 ` Dave Young 2008-02-28 8:03 ` Dave Young 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Dave Young @ 2008-02-27 2:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Randy Dunlap; +Cc: akpm, Dave Jones, Linux Kernel, Thomas Gleixner On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 1:33 AM, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:09:48 +0800 Dave Young wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 01:59:31PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:14:36 +0800 Dave Young wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > The boot_delay switch seems to be behaving strangely in the > > > > > > > current -git. Setting it to =10 makes the output 'bursty' > > > > > > > it becomes slow for some printk's whilst others scroll by > > > > > > > at regular speed. > > > > > > > Setting it any higher than that seems to make it pause for > > > > > > > a really long time before it outputs any text at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > On my side there's this issue for a long time > > > > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/8/79 > > > > > > > > > > [http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118655896515049&w=2] > > > > > > > > > > You asked questions and they were answered. Perhaps you didn't like > > > > > the answers. > > > > > > > > No, I like it. Thanks. > > > > > > > > But I still want to know why mdelay can not be used. > > > > is it not available for all archs or something else? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's a question for you. What kernel boot options did you use? > > > > > Specifically, for lpj= and boot_delay= ? > > > > > > > > I tried boot_delay=100 and boot_delay=200 without lpj set, The result > > > > was really slow. It was better with lpj copied from dmesg, but was > > > > still slower then mdelay. > > > > > > Especially at the very beginning after the message "Booting the kernel", > > > I need to wait several minutes to see the afterwards messages > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can firstly use preset lpj, after delay calibrating just > > > > use the system lpj > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > x86 timer changes perhaps ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > ~Randy > > > > > > > > > > > > > How about use loops_per_jiffy as following? With this patch at least > > for me the very long delay at the very begining does not occur. > > > > kernel/printk.c | 15 ++++----------- > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > > > diff -upr linux/kernel/printk.c linux.new/kernel/printk.c > > --- linux/kernel/printk.c 2008-02-26 16:54:23.000000000 +0800 > > +++ linux.new/kernel/printk.c 2008-02-26 16:59:02.000000000 +0800 > > @@ -173,24 +173,14 @@ __setup("log_buf_len=", log_buf_len_setu > > #ifdef CONFIG_BOOT_PRINTK_DELAY > > > > static unsigned int boot_delay; /* msecs delay after each printk during bootup */ > > -static unsigned long long printk_delay_msec; /* per msec, based on boot_delay */ > > > > static int __init boot_delay_setup(char *str) > > { > > - unsigned long lpj; > > - unsigned long long loops_per_msec; > > - > > - lpj = preset_lpj ? preset_lpj : 1000000; /* some guess */ > > - loops_per_msec = (unsigned long long)lpj / 1000 * HZ; > > - > > get_option(&str, &boot_delay); > > if (boot_delay > 10 * 1000) > > boot_delay = 0; > > > > - printk_delay_msec = loops_per_msec; > > - printk(KERN_DEBUG "boot_delay: %u, preset_lpj: %ld, lpj: %lu, " > > - "HZ: %d, printk_delay_msec: %llu\n", > > - boot_delay, preset_lpj, lpj, HZ, printk_delay_msec); > > + printk(KERN_DEBUG "boot_delay: %u\n", boot_delay); > > return 1; > > } > > __setup("boot_delay=", boot_delay_setup); > > @@ -199,6 +189,9 @@ static void boot_delay_msec(void) > > { > > unsigned long long k; > > unsigned long timeout; > > + unsigned long long printk_delay_msec; > > + > > + printk_delay_msec = (unsigned long long)loops_per_jiffy / 1000 * HZ; > > > > if (boot_delay == 0 || system_state != SYSTEM_BOOTING) > > return; > > -- > > Hi Dave, > > That might work, but IMO it requires someone to audit all > architectures to make sure that loops_per_jiffy has been calibrated > at that point in time >(as I mentioned in http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/11/153). Sorry for missing your words about this. > > I didn't do that and you said that you tested i386 only. > > Maybe you can get Andrew to merge it into -mm for testing... Andrew, what's your opinon? > > However, setting boot_delay=N without setting lpj=M is just not > advisable. The Kconfig help text for BOOT_PRINTK_DELAY tries to > say that. Maybe it needs to be stronger? I think it's enough now. I tested boot_delay yestoday, and found the result is different with before version. Even with lpj preset the delay is very slow, 5-10 seconds for every printk. Maybe this is what davej said. I will do some more test and hack about this today. > > It is likely that you would also need to use "lpj=M" to preset > the "loops per jiffie" value. > See a previous boot log for the "lpj" value to use for your > system, and then set "lpj=M" before setting "boot_delay=N". > > > --- > ~Randy > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: boot_delay broken ? 2008-02-27 2:01 ` Dave Young @ 2008-02-28 8:03 ` Dave Young 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Dave Young @ 2008-02-28 8:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Randy Dunlap; +Cc: akpm, Dave Jones, Linux Kernel, Thomas Gleixner On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 1:33 AM, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:09:48 +0800 Dave Young wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 01:59:31PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:14:36 +0800 Dave Young wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > The boot_delay switch seems to be behaving strangely in the > > > > > > > > current -git. Setting it to =10 makes the output 'bursty' > > > > > > > > it becomes slow for some printk's whilst others scroll by > > > > > > > > at regular speed. > > > > > > > > Setting it any higher than that seems to make it pause for > > > > > > > > a really long time before it outputs any text at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On my side there's this issue for a long time > > > > > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/8/79 > > > > > > > > > > > > [http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118655896515049&w=2] > > > > > > > > > > > > You asked questions and they were answered. Perhaps you didn't like > > > > > > the answers. > > > > > > > > > > No, I like it. Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > But I still want to know why mdelay can not be used. > > > > > is it not available for all archs or something else? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's a question for you. What kernel boot options did you use? > > > > > > Specifically, for lpj= and boot_delay= ? > > > > > > > > > > I tried boot_delay=100 and boot_delay=200 without lpj set, The result > > > > > was really slow. It was better with lpj copied from dmesg, but was > > > > > still slower then mdelay. > > > > > > > > Especially at the very beginning after the message "Booting the kernel", > > > > I need to wait several minutes to see the afterwards messages Answer to myself : It's due to the first delayed printk. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can firstly use preset lpj, after delay calibrating just > > > > > use the system lpj > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > x86 timer changes perhaps ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > ~Randy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How about use loops_per_jiffy as following? With this patch at least > > > for me the very long delay at the very begining does not occur. It does impoving the code, but does not resolve problem here. It looks ok because the loops_per_jiffy initial value is 4096, with this value the delay result is much better than with values copied from calibrated results. BTW, Pavel's suggest (nohz=off highres=off notsc) does not help me. > > > > > > kernel/printk.c | 15 ++++----------- > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff -upr linux/kernel/printk.c linux.new/kernel/printk.c > > > --- linux/kernel/printk.c 2008-02-26 16:54:23.000000000 +0800 > > > +++ linux.new/kernel/printk.c 2008-02-26 16:59:02.000000000 +0800 > > > @@ -173,24 +173,14 @@ __setup("log_buf_len=", log_buf_len_setu > > > #ifdef CONFIG_BOOT_PRINTK_DELAY > > > > > > static unsigned int boot_delay; /* msecs delay after each printk during bootup */ > > > -static unsigned long long printk_delay_msec; /* per msec, based on boot_delay */ > > > > > > static int __init boot_delay_setup(char *str) > > > { > > > - unsigned long lpj; > > > - unsigned long long loops_per_msec; > > > - > > > - lpj = preset_lpj ? preset_lpj : 1000000; /* some guess */ > > > - loops_per_msec = (unsigned long long)lpj / 1000 * HZ; > > > - > > > get_option(&str, &boot_delay); > > > if (boot_delay > 10 * 1000) > > > boot_delay = 0; > > > > > > - printk_delay_msec = loops_per_msec; > > > - printk(KERN_DEBUG "boot_delay: %u, preset_lpj: %ld, lpj: %lu, " > > > - "HZ: %d, printk_delay_msec: %llu\n", > > > - boot_delay, preset_lpj, lpj, HZ, printk_delay_msec); > > > + printk(KERN_DEBUG "boot_delay: %u\n", boot_delay); > > > return 1; > > > } > > > __setup("boot_delay=", boot_delay_setup); > > > @@ -199,6 +189,9 @@ static void boot_delay_msec(void) > > > { > > > unsigned long long k; > > > unsigned long timeout; > > > + unsigned long long printk_delay_msec; > > > + > > > + printk_delay_msec = (unsigned long long)loops_per_jiffy / 1000 * HZ; > > > > > > if (boot_delay == 0 || system_state != SYSTEM_BOOTING) > > > return; > > > -- > > > > Hi Dave, > > > > That might work, but IMO it requires someone to audit all > > architectures to make sure that loops_per_jiffy has been calibrated > > at that point in time > >(as I mentioned in http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/11/153). > > Sorry for missing your words about this. > > > > > > I didn't do that and you said that you tested i386 only. > > > > Maybe you can get Andrew to merge it into -mm for testing... > > Andrew, what's your opinon? > > > > > > However, setting boot_delay=N without setting lpj=M is just not > > advisable. The Kconfig help text for BOOT_PRINTK_DELAY tries to > > say that. Maybe it needs to be stronger? > > I think it's enough now. > > I tested boot_delay yestoday, and found the result is different with > before version. > Even with lpj preset the delay is very slow, 5-10 seconds for every printk. > Maybe this is what davej said. > > I will do some more test and hack about this today. > > > > > > > It is likely that you would also need to use "lpj=M" to preset > > the "loops per jiffie" value. > > See a previous boot log for the "lpj" value to use for your > > system, and then set "lpj=M" before setting "boot_delay=N". > > > > > > --- > > ~Randy > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: boot_delay broken ? 2008-02-24 0:46 boot_delay broken ? Dave Jones 2008-02-25 2:14 ` Dave Young @ 2008-02-27 9:19 ` Pavel Machek 1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Pavel Machek @ 2008-02-27 9:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Jones, Linux Kernel, Thomas Gleixner On Sat 2008-02-23 19:46:15, Dave Jones wrote: > The boot_delay switch seems to be behaving strangely in the > current -git. Setting it to =10 makes the output 'bursty' > it becomes slow for some printk's whilst others scroll by > at regular speed. > Setting it any higher than that seems to make it pause for > a really long time before it outputs any text at all. > > x86 timer changes perhaps ? If nohz=off highres=off notsc fixes it, it is probably timers :-). -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-02-28 8:03 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2008-02-24 0:46 boot_delay broken ? Dave Jones 2008-02-25 2:14 ` Dave Young 2008-02-26 5:22 ` Randy Dunlap 2008-02-26 5:48 ` Dave Young 2008-02-26 5:59 ` Dave Young 2008-02-26 9:09 ` Dave Young 2008-02-26 17:33 ` Randy Dunlap 2008-02-27 2:01 ` Dave Young 2008-02-28 8:03 ` Dave Young 2008-02-27 9:19 ` Pavel Machek
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).