Re: [PATCH 6/8] SGI x86_64 UV: Limit the number of microcode messages

[Mike Travis]

Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> 2009/10/24 Tigran Aivazian <tigran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > On Sat, 24 Oct 2009, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> > > > -       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.
> > The reason for printing them is that the pf (possibly others?) can change by the update and so the log has this info handy.
>
> We might store the old sig/pf/revision set as well, export them via
> /sys or/and print them at update-to-new-microcode time.
>
> If it's really so useful to have this info in the log and, at the same
> time, to avoid the flood of messages (which, I guess for the majority
> of systems, are the same) at startup time, we might delay the printout
> until the end of microcode_init(). Then do something like this:
>
> microcode cpu0: up to date version sig, pf, rev          // let's say,
> it was updated by BIOS
> microcode cpus [1 ... 16] : update from sig, pf, rev to sig, pf2, rev2.
>
> Anyway, my humble opinion, is that (at the very least) the current
> patch should be accompanied by a similar version for amd.

I could add it for AMD but I can't test it, and I'm always reluctant to
change things I can't verify.

Thanks,
Mike

> > Kind regards
> > Tigran
>
>
> -- Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/