lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 6/8] SGI x86_64 UV: Limit the number of microcode messages


    Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
    > 2009/10/24 Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>:
    >> 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
    > following:
    >
    > 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

    I would be more than happy to remove messages but I didn't want to override
    the original author's intent on why they choose to add these messages in the
    first place.

    Plus if you have a 64 or 128 cpu system, it might give you pleasure in seeing
    all those cpu messages. ;-) Just when it hits around 256 and up that it
    really starts getting annoying.

    Thanks,
    Mike



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-10-26 19:21    [W:4.877 / U:0.168 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site