[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:0.116 / U:6.256 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site