Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:27:03 -0800
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
To: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org>
Cc: Andreas Robinson <andr345@gmail.com>,
       Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>, sam@ravnborg.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] module, kbuild: Faster boot with custom kernel.
Message-ID: <20090302102703.50aaf724@infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <ac3eb2510903020829s7c876a96y7eb5568eeb9921fd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1234722028-8110-1-git-send-email-andr345@gmail.com>
	<ac3eb2510902170353ia62a630nbe5cf059ca7d616e@mail.gmail.com>
	<200902181528.29697.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
	<ac3eb2510902180115o4690a335n129e4df695540de0@mail.gmail.com>
	<1234952753.10531.48.camel@andreas-laptop>
	<cc43514a0902191637h5a9680c5id95f7d6c32cca472@mail.gmail.com>
	<ac3eb2510902191755i391d4defnc5a514f4525ec6cf@mail.gmail.com>
	<1235216636.7025.1023.camel@andreas-laptop>
	<1236004353.10055.49.camel@andreas-laptop>
	<20090302082003.1bb7bdc5@infradead.org>
	<ac3eb2510903020829s7c876a96y7eb5568eeb9921fd@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Intel
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2003
Lines: 51

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:29:57 +0100
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 17:20, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
> wrote:
> >> A monolithic kernel with parallelized initcalls is better - about
> >> 200 ms faster than parallel insmods on my test system. However, it
> >> comes with a fairly large set of changes:
> >>
> >> * First, you need a 200-line patch in init/main.c (do_initcalls()
> >> and friends)
> >
> > why?
> > We already have async function calls; and those speed up my boot
> > (when enabled) significantly, by doing much of the kernel/driver
> > init in parallel.
> >
> > My server box boots the whole kernel (including all drivers; I build
> > verything in) in 0.56 seconds, and my net books do it in around 1.0
> > seconds.
> >
> >>
> >> * Then the built-in module dependencies must be calculated
> >> properly, eg with a modified depmod, and added to the build
> >> process.
> >
> > nope not if done right
> >
> >> So, what do you think, should I keep going? IMHO, the slower
> >> userspace implementation is acceptable since it's so much simpler.
> >
> > I would strongly suggest that you turn on the async function calls
> > and look at the boot graph of the resulting kernel boot... if you
> > send that to me I can also take a look and make suggestions....
> 
> The "fastboot" kernel commandline option was used, as mentioned in the
> mail. Is there anything else?

there is some sata level enabling needed depending on the system;
I'd love to see the bootgraph (scripts/bootgraph.pl) for the boot;
that shows exactly what happens when and for how long.

-- 
Arjan van de Ven 	Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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/