Re: Early boot became slower

2017-01-31 Thread deloptes
David Wright wrote: > a waste of time for many, because the rate at which the video runs > is a function of the power of the recipient's computer. None of mine > are able to run these videos at all smoothly you must be kidding

Re: Early boot became slower

2017-01-30 Thread David Wright
On Mon 30 Jan 2017 at 22:31:28 (+), Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote: > Felix Miata: > > >At what point exactly within either of those videos does 80 by 25 > >appear? All I saw anywhere appeared to be in the vicinity of 240 > >by 67. > > I think that I have put my finger on the source of your

Re: Early boot became slower

2017-01-30 Thread Felix Miata
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard composed on 2017-01-30 22:31 (UTC): Felix Miata composed: At what point exactly within either of those videos does 80 by 25 appear? All I saw anywhere appeared to be in the vicinity of 240 by 67. I think that I have put my finger on the source of your perplexity.

Early boot became slower

2017-01-30 Thread Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
Felix Miata: At what point exactly within either of those videos does 80 by 25 appear? All I saw anywhere appeared to be in the vicinity of 240 by 67. I think that I have put my finger on the source of your perplexity. Remember where M. Oss said the following? Mattia Oss: This can be s

Re: Early boot became slower

2017-01-30 Thread Felix Miata
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard composed on 2017-01-30 08:45 (UTC): It's really simple. It's the same size monitor. The "normal" characters are high resolution 24-bit colour graphics mode with 8*16 pixel glyphs, giving 240 columns by 67 rows. The "huge" characters are VGA text mode at 80 columns by

Early boot became slower

2017-01-30 Thread Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
Mattia Oss: This can be seen in the 3rd video. Lisi Reisz: By you. Not by me - nor apparently by Felix. It's really simple. It's the same size monitor. The "normal" characters are high resolution 24-bit colour graphics mode with 8*16 pixel glyphs, giving 240 columns by 67 rows. The "

Re: Early boot became slower

2017-01-28 Thread Felix Miata
Mattia Oss composed on 2017-01-28 18:14 (UTC+0100): As you can see it uses simplefb and not vesafb. I'm quite sure that this is the problem. As Sven Joachim pointed out, the Debian devs disabled simplefb because it has problems with KMS framebuffer. Reading the link he provided they disabled the

Re: Early boot became slower

2017-01-28 Thread deloptes
Mattia Oss wrote: > BUT, I made a progress. :) > I installed linux-source-4.9 and compiled the kernel with the 4.8.0-1 > config. The result: it boots fast! :) > printk.time=1 as kernel param at boot would help you find out where it slows down. It looks like something takes more time to initializ

Re: Early boot became slower

2017-01-28 Thread Mattia Oss
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:06:09PM +0100, deloptes wrote: > Mattia Oss wrote: > > > > > Anyway thanks for the effort, much appreciated. :) > > Perhaps you should check your plymouth install/setup. I am not ubuntu user. [I reply here for everybody] First of all: ok, uploading to google drive wa

Re: Early boot became slower

2017-01-27 Thread deloptes
Mattia Oss wrote: > > Anyway thanks for the effort, much appreciated. :) Perhaps you should check your plymouth install/setup. I am not ubuntu user. I was able to see the videos and still, you are shaking and the video is out of focus, so one can not see where it hangs. I guess it is trying/hang

Re: Early boot became slower

2017-01-27 Thread Lisi Reisz
On Friday 27 January 2017 16:56:32 Mattia Oss wrote: > This can be seen in the 3rd > video. By you. Not by me - nor apparently by Felix. Lisi

Re: Early boot became slower

2017-01-27 Thread Felix Miata
Mattia Oss composed on 2017-01-27 17:56 (UTC+0100): On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 04:14:57AM -0500, Felix Miata wrote: Mattia Oss composed on 2017-01-27 01:34 (UTC+0100): > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 02:18:36PM -0500, Felix Miata wrote: > > For the boot menu, or after? > To clarify I uploaded

Re: Early boot became slower

2017-01-27 Thread Mattia Oss
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 04:14:57AM -0500, Felix Miata wrote: > Mattia Oss composed on 2017-01-27 01:34 (UTC+0100): > > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 02:18:36PM -0500, Felix Miata wrote: > > > > For the boot menu, or after? > > > To clarify I uploaded some videos (sorry for the crappy quality :/ ) >

Re: Early boot became slower

2017-01-27 Thread Felix Miata
Mattia Oss composed on 2017-01-27 01:34 (UTC+0100): On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 02:18:36PM -0500, Felix Miata wrote: For the boot menu, or after? To clarify I uploaded some videos (sorry for the crappy quality :/ ) You haven't answered my question. linux-image-4.8.0-1-amd64: https://goo.gl

Re: Early boot became slower

2017-01-26 Thread Mattia Oss
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 02:18:36PM -0500, Felix Miata wrote: > > For the boot menu, or after? To clarify I uploaded some videos (sorry for the crappy quality :/ ) linux-image-4.8.0-1-amd64: https://goo.gl/TsXUBB This was the last kernel with fast boot. In /etc/default/grub I had: GRUB_GFXMODE=1

Re: Early boot became slower

2017-01-26 Thread deloptes
Mattia Oss wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 08:33:16PM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote: >> On 2017-01-25 16:26 +0100, Mattia Oss wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 05:59:42PM +0100, Mattia Oss wrote: >> >> I use grub2. I tried the "text" kernel parameter: it works but it >> >> obviously isn't what

Re: Early boot became slower

2017-01-26 Thread Felix Miata
Mattia Oss composed on 2017-01-26 18:47 (UTC+0100): On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 08:33:16PM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote: Does GRUB_GFXPAYLOAD_LINUX=text in /etc/default/grub help? Don't forget to run update-grub after changing that file. Yes as mentioned above this works but I have HUGE characte

Re: Early boot became slower

2017-01-26 Thread Mattia Oss
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 08:33:16PM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote: > On 2017-01-25 16:26 +0100, Mattia Oss wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 05:59:42PM +0100, Mattia Oss wrote: > >> I use grub2. I tried the "text" kernel parameter: it works but it > >> obviously isn't what I was looking for. > > > >

Re: Early boot became slower

2017-01-25 Thread Sven Joachim
On 2017-01-25 16:26 +0100, Mattia Oss wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 05:59:42PM +0100, Mattia Oss wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 05:36:58PM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote: >> > On 2017-01-24 17:13 +0100, Mattia Oss wrote: >> > > Any way to fix this without recompiling? >> > >> > Try not to load v

Re: Early boot became slower

2017-01-25 Thread Mattia Oss
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 05:59:42PM +0100, Mattia Oss wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 05:36:58PM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote: > > On 2017-01-24 17:13 +0100, Mattia Oss wrote: > > > Any way to fix this without recompiling? > > > > Try not to load vesafb in the first place. Which bootloader do you us

Re: Early boot became slower

2017-01-24 Thread Mattia Oss
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 05:36:58PM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote: > On 2017-01-24 17:13 +0100, Mattia Oss wrote: > > I see that CONFIG_FB_SIMPLE is not set anymore. Is that a reason for > > that? > > Apparently the handover to the KMS framebuffer from simplefb does not > work for all drivers[1]. Than

Re: Early boot became slower

2017-01-24 Thread Sven Joachim
On 2017-01-24 17:13 +0100, Mattia Oss wrote: > since linux-image-4.8.0-2-amd64 the early phase of my booting process > became slower (~10 secs). I think that it has to do with the > framebuffer. This is the only relevant difference in dmesg: > > 4.8.0-1-amd64: > simple-framebuffer simple-framebuff

Early boot became slower

2017-01-24 Thread Mattia Oss
Hi all, since linux-image-4.8.0-2-amd64 the early phase of my booting process became slower (~10 secs). I think that it has to do with the framebuffer. This is the only relevant difference in dmesg: 4.8.0-1-amd64: simple-framebuffer simple-framebuffer.0: framebuffer at 0xe000, 0x7e9000 bytes