Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755764AbZKDM1Z (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Nov 2009 07:27:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755582AbZKDM1Z (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Nov 2009 07:27:25 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:58061 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755559AbZKDM1Y (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Nov 2009 07:27:24 -0500 Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 13:27:16 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: dimm Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Mike Travis , Tigran Aivazian , Thomas Gleixner , Borislav Petkov , Andreas Mohr , Jack Steiner Subject: Re: [ RFC, PATCH - 1/2, v2 ] x86-microcode: refactor microcode output messages Message-ID: <20091104122716.GA11968@elte.hu> References: <1257192496.5941.8.camel@dimm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1257192496.5941.8.camel@dimm> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) X-ELTE-SpamScore: 0.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=0.0 required=5.9 tests=none autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 _SUMMARY_ Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1621 Lines: 54 * dimm wrote: > [ resending ] > > > Hi, > > > this is in response to Mike's patch "Limit the number of microcode > messages". > > What's about the following (yet preliminary and not thoroughly tested) > approach? > > patch-1: > > simplify 'struct ucode_cpu_info' and related functional logic. > > > patch-2: > > reduce a number of similar 'microcode version' messages by printing a > single message for all cpus with equal microcode version, like: > > (1) > [ 96.589437] microcode: original microcode versions... > [ 96.589451] microcode: CPU0-1: sig=0x6f2, pf=0x20, revision=0x57 > > (2) > [ 96.603176] microcode: microcode versions after update... > [ 96.603193] microcode: CPU0-1: sig=0x6f2, pf=0x20, revision=0x57 > > > The new approach is used in microcode_init() [ i.e. when loading a > module ] and microcode_write(), that's when we update all the cpus at > once. > > reload_for_cpu() and update-all-cpus-upon-resuming() use the old > approach - a new microcode version is being reported upon applying it. > > The latter might employ the similar 'report-for-all' approach as above > but that would somewhat complicate the logic. Anyways, there are plenty > of per-cpu messages upon system resuming so having some more > update-microcode related ones won't harm that muc, I guess :-) Seems sensible to me. Ingo -- 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/