From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266500AbUGKFTS (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jul 2004 01:19:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266501AbUGKFTS (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jul 2004 01:19:18 -0400 Received: from smtp812.mail.sc5.yahoo.com ([66.163.170.82]:10896 "HELO smtp812.mail.sc5.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S266500AbUGKFTQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jul 2004 01:19:16 -0400 From: Dmitry Torokhov To: karim@opersys.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] preset loops_per_jiffy for faster booting Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 00:19:14 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 Cc: Adam Kropelin , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tim.bird@am.sony.com, celinux-dev@tree.celinuxforum.org, tpoynor@mvista.com, geert@linux-m68k.org References: <40EEF10F.1030404@am.sony.com> <200407102351.05059.dtor_core@ameritech.net> <40F0C8E8.2060908@opersys.com> In-Reply-To: <40F0C8E8.2060908@opersys.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200407110019.14558.dtor_core@ameritech.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Saturday 10 July 2004 11:58 pm, Karim Yaghmour wrote: > > Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > Do we need to encourage ordinary users to turn this option on? 99% of > > non-embedded market is much safer with that option off... > > There are other boot params that gather similar if not higher percentages. > profile= is one of those. > I do not see anywhere in my boot log suggestion to activate profiling... Nor I see recommendadtion to use idebus=66... But i will see suggesion to set loops_per_jiffy. > Also, keep in mind that in a not too distant future (and indeed today for > some folks already) recompiling and fine-tuning the Linux kernel for your > latest gizmo will not be as foreign as your statement may make it sound. Use of this particular option will require active tracking of kernel timer code to ensure that lpj that was valid for kernel x.y.z is still valid for kernel x.y.z+1. I do not beleive that normal user will ever care to do that even in very distant future. Still, given that message in the boot log, many will probably try the option. I am no longer question presence of the code in the kernel, I just don't like the message... -- Dmitry