> > > initcall 0xc1f5487d ran for 23083 msecs: pca_isa_init+0x0/0x143()
> > > initcall 0xc1f54fba ran for 17121 msecs: pcf8574_init+0x0/0x20()
> >
> > e.g. those just look like bugs.
>
> it's ok i think: it's ISA so it spends its time fairly to tickle the
> ports in a loop.
23 or 17 seconds lo
* Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > so 93.6% of the allyesconfig bootup time is in 2.5% of the
> > initcalls. If they were fixed then an allyesconfig bzImage, which
> > would be capable to run on every PC known to mankind without any
> > mod
Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> so 93.6% of the allyesconfig bootup time is in 2.5% of the initcalls. If
> they were fixed then an allyesconfig bzImage, which would be capable to
> run on every PC known to mankind without any module whatsoever, would
Assuming that every PC has enough
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> some boot time analysis using this facility:
using a non-allyesconfig kernel gives the results below. The entries
that seem to take a bit too long (considering what they do):
initcall 0xc069bac5 ran for 519 msecs: init_nic+0x0/0x2c()
initcall 0xc06996
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 20:16:14 +0200 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> + if (initcall_debug) {
> + t1 = ktime_get();
> + delta = ktime_sub(t1, t0);
> +
> + printk("initcall 0x%p", *call);
> + print_fn_d
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Subject: [patch] enhance initcall_debug, measure latency
> From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> enhance the initcall_debug boot option:
>
> - measure the time the initcall took to execute and report
>it in
Subject: [patch] enhance initcall_debug, measure latency
From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
enhance the initcall_debug boot option:
- measure the time the initcall took to execute and report
it in units of milliseconds.
- show the return code of initcalls (useful to see failur
7 matches
Mail list logo
