From: schen@mvista.com (Steve Chen)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Kernel Start-up Time
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:39:03 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1263829143.3207.34.camel@linux-1lbu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201001181054.59214.caglarakyuz@gmail.com>
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 10:54 +0200, Caglar Akyuz wrote:
> On Monday 18 January 2010 10:39:27 am Tonyliu wrote:
> > Caglar Akyuz wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > While measuring Linux start-up time, I see that printing version string
> > > in "start_kernel" takes ~1.3 seconds. I guess this is the time between
> > > from "bootloader jumping to uImage" and "printing version string in
> > > generic start_kernel code". Relevant part of my boot log is attached.
> > >
> > > My question: is it normal this 1.3 sec init time? My system is 297 MHZ
> > > arm926ej-s with a 162MHZ DDR2 memory.
> >
> > It depends on where you start to measure it?
> > Starting from when power is turned on.
> > Starting from when the first instruction executes.
> > Start from the bootloader tries to load the kernel image.
> > ...
>
> That number is relative, it is the time passing from u-boot jumping to kernel
> and kernel starting.
>
> > I think this type of mearsurement makes no much sense to you, since
> > normally
> > people want to know
> > When the kernel loads userspace or
> > When the first app starts to run.
> >
>
> First application starts in ~4 second. This time consists of:
>
> 1) ~1 sec for application start.
> 2) ~1 sec for userspace init, mouting filesys, etc.
> 3) ~1 sec for kernel init for drivers and machine specific code
> 4) ~1 sec for the aforementioned delay.
>
> > These are more meaningful for specific product.
> >
>
> It is number 4 that I'm trying to understand. I think it has the highest
> chance to contribute to end goal. But if it is as expected, then no room for
> optimization there.
>
Well, "no room for optimization" is a pretty strong statement. Last
year Monta Vista demo the 1 second boot.
http://mvista.com/press_release_detail.php?fid=news/2009/Ultra-fast-boot.html&d=
I realized that it is a different and faster processor, but I'm pretty
sure there are plenty of places you can trim the boot time. It is a
matter of time and effort. You may want to start with the system
requirement to see if 4 seconds is good enough and go from there.
Regards,
Steve
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-18 15:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-01-18 8:10 Kernel Start-up Time Caglar Akyuz
2010-01-18 8:39 ` Tonyliu
2010-01-18 8:54 ` Caglar Akyuz
2010-01-18 15:39 ` Steve Chen [this message]
2010-01-18 19:39 ` Dirk Behme
2010-01-19 8:40 ` Caglar Akyuz
2010-01-19 8:36 ` Caglar Akyuz
2010-01-19 9:02 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-01-19 14:31 ` Caglar Akyuz
2010-01-19 11:04 ` Bahadir Balban
2010-01-19 14:40 ` Caglar Akyuz
2010-01-19 11:04 ` Johannes Stezenbach
2010-01-19 14:35 ` Caglar Akyuz
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1263829143.3207.34.camel@linux-1lbu \
--to=schen@mvista.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox