[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 6/8] SGI x86_64 UV: Limit the number of microcode messages
    2009/10/24 Mike Travis <>:
    > Limit number of microcode messages of the form:
    > [   50.887135] microcode: CPU0 sig=0x206e5, pf=0x4, revision=0xffff001
    > [ ... ]
    > --- linux.orig/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_intel.c
    > +++ linux/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_intel.c
    > @@ -165,7 +165,9 @@
    >        /* get the current revision from MSR 0x8B */
    >        rdmsr(MSR_IA32_UCODE_REV, val[0], csig->rev);
    > -       printk(KERN_INFO "microcode: CPU%d sig=0x%x, pf=0x%x, revision=0x%x\n",
    > +       if (cpu_num < 4 || !limit_console_output(false))
    > +               printk(KERN_INFO
    > +                       "microcode: CPU%d sig=0x%x, pf=0x%x, revision=0x%x\n",
    >                        cpu_num, csig->sig, csig->pf, csig->rev);

    Hmm, I guess we wouldn't lose a lot by simply removing those messages
    completely. Per-cpu pf/revision is available via /sys anyway.

    Alternatively, we might move the output into
    microcode_core.c::collect_cpu_info() (or even microcode_init_cpu()) so
    that the same logic is also applied for amd and do something as

    don't print if a cpu info is equal to the info of CPU#0. I guess, any
    non-0 cpu would be even better as the microcode for cpu#0 can be
    loaded by BIOS, if I'm not mistaken. But then we can only be sure
    about the presence of cpu#0.

    Anyway, it's not worthy of any additional complexity so I'd say let's
    just remove the output :-)

    -- Dmitry
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-10-24 22:11    [W:0.021 / U:73.476 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site