At Thu, 23 May 2013 10:06:56 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > At Thu, 23 May 2013 15:45:32 +0800, > Ming Lei wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Dave Jones <da...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On 05/21/2013 04:03 PM, Dave Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > [ 72.318133] microcode: CPU1 sig=0x306c3, pf=0x2, revision=0x6 > > > > [ 132.446449] microcode: CPU2 sig=0x306c3, pf=0x2, revision=0x6 > > > > [ 192.573101] microcode: CPU3 sig=0x306c3, pf=0x2, revision=0x6 > > > > [ 252.702055] microcode: Microcode Update Driver: v2.00 > > > <tig...@aivazian.fsnet.co.uk>, Peter Oruba > > > > > > > > For some reason the events for udev seem to be getting delayed 60s > > > > for each core. > > > > > > Screwed up my .config, and had CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER inadvertantly > > > set > > > Odd though that it causes that 60 second delay, given that it's > > > supposedly a > > > 'fallback' when the direct loading fails. > > > > udevd has the ugly problem previously at some situations(for example, > > request_firmware called in probe(), and that is why direct loading is > > introduced), > > but not sure why the direct loading is failed first. > > The microcode update is optional, so it's no error even if the > microcode firmwares are not found. > > But yes, this seems happening during the module probing. The lines > "microcde: CPU..." show before "microcode: Microcode Update > Driver...", which means the f/w loading has been done before finishing > the module load. > > I thought (or hoped) this mess (60s stalls) was fixed in the recent > udev, but apparently not...?
Thinking on this again, if the user-space continues to be broken in that point, we should provide request_firmware() variant without udev, e.g. request_firmware_direct(), and use it in known places like this? Takashi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
