From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762678AbYD1BYR (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:24:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752034AbYD1BYI (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:24:08 -0400 Received: from yw-out-2324.google.com ([74.125.46.31]:1902 "EHLO yw-out-2324.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751999AbYD1BYF (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:24:05 -0400 Message-ID: <48152747.4030107@larces.uece.br> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:24:23 -0300 From: Sergio Luis User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ken Moffat CC: Bart Van Assche , LKML , Ingo Molnar , Glauber Costa Subject: Re: 2.6.25 slow boot/reboot References: <48141111.7010605@larces.uece.br> <20080427235554.GA28344@deepthought> In-Reply-To: <20080427235554.GA28344@deepthought> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ken Moffat wrote: > On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 05:23:57PM +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 7:37 AM, Sergio Luis wrote: >>> This weekend I got some time and decided to try out 2.6.25, but its booting process was _really_ slow in my laptop[1]. With 'old' 2.6.24.5 my machine would take about 48 secs until it gave me the login prompt. And it would take about 22 seconds to reboot. >> Do you use LILO or GRUB for booting ? 2.6.25 works OK on the systems I >> tested, but LILO really needs a lot of time to load the 2.6.25 kernel. >> GRUB loads the 2.6.25 kernel at normal speed. >> >> Bart. > ISTR that an _old_ version of lilo was mentioned earlier in this > thread. As a datapoint, on my one desktop box which uses lilo (an > athlon64 uniprocessor) both 32 and 64-bit 2.6.25 kernels boot fine. > Both of those systems are with lilo-22.8, and gcc-4.2.2. > > But, I think you (Bart) haven't said which version of lilo you are > using ? If it isn't recent, perhaps upgrading it might help ? > > For Sergio, you have my sympathy. I totally failed to bisect my own > problem with 2.6.25-rc (and 2.6.24.1), although I did find the problem > by other means, and got a work-around, so I'm not competent to > diagnose what is wrong, but maybe I can help to tease out what is > different about your box. As a start, you could try diffing your > config's for 2.6.24.5 and 2.6.25 in case something odd has changed. > I tried bisecting and after some hours I got 9713277607f9eac7d655c6854dd92bc2ce1b6f02 as first bad commit commit 9713277607f9eac7d655c6854dd92bc2ce1b6f02 Author: Glauber de Oliveira Costa Date: Wed Mar 19 14:25:43 2008 -0300 x86: boot cpus from cpu_up, instead of prepare_cpus After all the infrastructure work, we're now prepared to boot the cpus from cpu_up, and not from prepare_cpus. So the difference between cold boot and hotplug is effectively over, and the functions are used to the purposes they're meant to. Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar (cc'ing Glauber and Ingo, maybe they can help) > Or, perhaps this is a problem specific to a certain processor ? So > far, I think all the list knows is that you have a problem, and an > old version of lilo. More data might eventually help to identify > what is causing this. If you have a fairly old version of lilo, > maybe you also have an old version of gcc ? lilo version is 22.8 gcc version is 4.1.2 the processor is an amd turion 64x2 2.0 ghz (tl-60) and I am building a 32bit kernel. please, let me know if more info is needed. > > For Bart too, which version(s) of gcc are you using on the systems > where lilo is slow to load, and which cpu(s) do you have there ? > > Ken, who relies on lilo for his server, and gets worried by reports > of trouble with it. note lilo is indeed much slower than grub to start booting the kernel here, but I am talking about this 2.6.25 kernel taking almost 5 min to finish the boot process (once it is actually started by the bootloader) when it would take less than 1 minute with 2.6.24.5 in this same machine. thanks, -sergio