Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:23:05 +0200 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: Cleanup boot CPUs table |
| |
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 10:25:42AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > Could we, with another add-on patch, further compress the first half > of the output as well? > > Advanced output like this would be really cool:
Sure.
> > [ 0.074509] x86: Booting node #0, CPUs: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 > > [ 0.644008] x86: Booting node #1, CPUs: #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 > > [ 1.245006] x86: Booting node #2, CPUs: #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 > > [ 1.864005] x86: Booting node #3, CPUs: #24 #25 #26 #27 #28 #29 #30 #31 > > [ 2.489005] x86: Booting node #4, CPUs: #32 #33 #34 #35 #36 #37 #38 #39 > > [ 3.093005] x86: Booting node #5, CPUs: #40 #41 #42 #43 #44 #45 #46 #47 > > [ 3.698005] x86: Booting node #6, CPUs: #48 #49 #50 #51 #52 #53 #54 #55 > > [ 4.304005] x86: Booting node #7, CPUs: #56 #57 #58 #59 #60 #61 #62 #63 > > [ 4.961413] x86: Booted up 8 nodes, 64 CPUs
Boot(ing|ed) kinda wastes unnecessary space too, how about we go a step further:
[ 0.074509] x86: Booting SMP configuration: [ 0.644008] .... node #0, CPUs: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 [ 1.245006] .... node #1, CPUs: #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 [ 1.864005] .... node #2, CPUs: #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 [ 2.489005] .... node #3, CPUs: #24 #25 #26 #27 #28 #29 #30 #31 [ 3.093005] .... node #4, CPUs: #32 #33 #34 #35 #36 #37 #38 #39 [ 3.698005] .... node #5, CPUs: #40 #41 #42 #43 #44 #45 #46 #47 [ 4.304005] .... node #6, CPUs: #48 #49 #50 #51 #52 #53 #54 #55 [ 4.961413] .... node #7, CPUs: #56 #57 #58 #59 #60 #61 #62 #63 [ 5.245021] x86: Booted up 8 nodes, 64 CPUs
> > [ 0.072367] x86: Booting node #0, CPUs: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 > > [ 0.686329] x86: Booted up 1 node, 8 CPUs
vs
[ 0.074509] x86: Booting SMP configuration: [ 0.072367] .... node #0, CPUs: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 [ 0.686329] x86: Booted up 1 node, 8 CPUs
Btw, the "x86" prefix would mean we want to either change pr_fmt() of arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c (which I rather not) or not use pr_info (which I'd prefer).
> Note the typographical details I added: > > - I added an extra space after 'CPUs:' to make the table stand out > better from far away
Ok.
> - Removed the 'OK' - it really does not add any more information than > the newline already does
Yes.
> - Changed the 'Brought up' message to be more consistent with the prior > messages.
Ok.
> - Added nodes count to the 'Booted up' line. Since we count nodes and > CPUs, we might as well want to demonstrate our superior counting > skills and print out both.
Haha, ok.
> - The 'node' counting uses the new num_digits() function - this was very > easy to implement in my mockup ;-)
Ok.
> - Note the singular spelling of 'node' in the 1-node case. Again this > was easy in the mockup!
Should be easy to do :)
So how about the even shorter mockup above?
Thanks.
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. --
| |