On 08/15/2009 12:35 AM, Zan Lynx wrote:
Linus Walleij wrote:
2009/8/14 Robert Schwebel :
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 12:19:48PM -0600, Zan Lynx wrote:
That's factor 70 away from the 110 ms boot time Tim has talked about
some days ago (and he measured on an ARM cpu which had almost half
the speed
On 08/14/2009 11:04 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
[ 2.742628]<0.016050> 0x0036-0x0400 : "root"
[ 3.058610]<0.315982> UBI: attaching mtd7 to ubi0
[ 3.062878]<0.004268> UBI: physical eraseblock size: 16384 bytes (16
KiB)
[ 3.070601]<0.007723> UBI: logical eras
Robert Schwebel wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:04:57PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
r...@thebe:~$ microcom | ptx_ts "U-Boot 2.0.0-rc9"
[ 2.395740] < 2.395740>
[ 2.395860] < 0.000120>
[ 0.11] < 0.11> U-Boot 2.0.0-rc9 (Aug 5 2009 - 10:05:58)
[ 0.59] < 0.48>
[ 0.003823]
Linus Walleij wrote:
2009/8/14 Robert Schwebel :
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 12:19:48PM -0600, Zan Lynx wrote:
That's factor 70 away from the 110 ms boot time Tim has talked about
some days ago (and he measured on an ARM cpu which had almost half
the speed of this one), and I'm wondering what we
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 11:01:58PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >> > That's factor 70 away from the 110 ms boot time Tim has talked about
> >> > some days ago (and he measured on an ARM cpu which had almost half
> >> > the speed of this one), and I'm wondering what we can do to improve
> >> > the
2009/8/14 Robert Schwebel :
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 12:19:48PM -0600, Zan Lynx wrote:
>> > That's factor 70 away from the 110 ms boot time Tim has talked about
>> > some days ago (and he measured on an ARM cpu which had almost half
>> > the speed of this one), and I'm wondering what we can do to
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:04:57PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > r...@thebe:~$ microcom | ptx_ts "U-Boot 2.0.0-rc9"
> > [ 2.395740] < 2.395740>
> > [ 2.395860] < 0.000120>
> > [ 0.11] < 0.11> U-Boot 2.0.0-rc9 (Aug 5 2009 - 10:05:58)
> > [ 0.59] < 0.48>
> > [ 0.003823] <
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Robert
Schwebel wrote:
> So we basically have 7 s for the kernel. The rest is userspace, which hasn't
> seen much optimization yet, other than trying to start the GUI application as
> early as possible, while doing all other init stuff in parallel. Adding
> "quiet"
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 07:46:51PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Zan Lynx wrote:
> > Or maybe its cheap and slow flash. In that case I think your only
> > hope is to make all the code as small as possible and/or find a
> > different flash filesystem that does not have to read so much of the
> > devi
Zan,
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 12:19:48PM -0600, Zan Lynx wrote:
> > That's factor 70 away from the 110 ms boot time Tim has talked about
> > some days ago (and he measured on an ARM cpu which had almost half
> > the speed of this one), and I'm wondering what we can do to improve
> > the boot time.
Zan Lynx wrote:
> Or maybe its cheap and slow flash. In that case I think your only hope
> is to make all the code as small as possible and/or find a different
> flash filesystem that does not have to read so much of the device to
> mount. Perhaps use a read-only compressed filesystem for the sy
Robert Schwebel wrote:
- 2.4 s up from u-boot to the end of "Uncompressing Linux"
- 300 ms until ubifs initialization starts
- 3.7 s for ubifs, until "mounted root"
So we basically have 7 s for the kernel. The rest is userspace, which hasn't
seen much optimization yet, other than trying to star
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 05:33:26PM +0200, Robert Schwebel wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 08:28:26AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > That's bad :-) So there is no room for improvement any more in our
> > > ARM boot sequences ...
> >
> > on x86 we're doing pretty well ;-)
>
> On i.MX27 (4
This is the second part of patch. This part includes:
- changes to ach/arch/boot/Makefile to make it easier to add new
compression types
- new piggy.lzo.S necessary for lzo compression
- changes in arch/arm/boot/compressed/misc.c to allow the use of lzo or
gzip, depending on the config
-
14 matches
Mail list logo
