Re: New fast(?)-boot results on ARM

[Marco Stornelli]

Dirk Behme wrote:
> Sascha Hauer wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 07:02:28PM +0200, Robert Schwebel wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 05:33:26PM +0200, Robert Schwebel wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 08:28:26AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>>>>>> That's bad :-) So there is no room for improvement any more in our
>>>>>> ARM boot sequences ...
>>>>> on x86 we're doing pretty well ;-)
>>>> On i.MX27 (400 MHz ARM926EJ-S) we currently need 7 s, measured from
>>>> power-on through the kernel up to "starting init". This is with
>>>>
>>>> - no delay in u-boot-v2
>>>> - rootfs on NAND (UBIFS)
>>>> - quiet
>>>> - precalculated loops-per-jiffy
>>>> - zImage kernel instead of uImage
>>> Here's a little video of our demo system booting:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDbUnNsj0cI
>>>
>>> As you can see there, it needs about 15 s from the release of the
>>> reset button
>>> up to the moment where the application shows it's Qt 4.5.2 based GUI
>>> (which is
>>> when we fade over from the initial framebuffer to the final one, in
>>> order to
>>> hide the qt application startup noise).
>>>
>>> And below is the boot log (after turning "quiet" off again). The
>>> numbers are
>>> the timestamp and the delta to the last timestamp, measured on the
>>> controlling
>>> PC by looking at the serial console output. The ptx_ts script starts
>>> when the
>>> regexp was found, so the numbers start basically in the moment when
>>> u-boot-v2
>>> has initialized the system up to the point where we can see something.
>>>
>>> Result:
>>>
>>> - 2.4 s up from u-boot to the end of "Uncompressing Linux"
>>> - 300 ms until ubifs initialization starts
>>> - 3.7 s for ubifs, until "mounted root"
>>>
>>> So we basically have 7 s for the kernel. The rest is userspace, which
>>> hasn't
>>> seen much optimization yet, other than trying to start the GUI
>>> application as
>>> early as possible, while doing all other init stuff in parallel.
>>> Adding "quiet"
>>> brings us another 300 ms.
>>>
>>> That's factor 70 away from the 110 ms boot time Tim has talked about
>>> some days
>>> ago (and he measured on an ARM cpu which had almost half the speed of
>>> this
>>> one), and I'm wondering what we can do to improve the boot time.
>>>
>>> Robert
>>>
>>> rsc@thebe:~$ microcom | ptx_ts "U-Boot 2.0.0-rc9"
>>> [ 13.522625] <  0.043189>
>>> [ 13.546627] <  0.024002> OSELAS(R)-phyCORE-trunk
>>> (PTXdist-1.99.svn/2009-08-06T08:37:25+0200)
>>> [ 13.558613] <  0.011986>
>>> [ 13.690643] <  0.132030>        _            ____ ___  ____  _____
>>> [ 13.690731] <  0.000088>  _ __ | |__  _   _ / ___/ _ \|  _ \| ____|
>>> [ 13.698595] <  0.007864> | '_ \| '_ \| | | | |  | | | | |_) |  _|
>>> [ 13.698654] <  0.000059> | |_) | | | | |_| | |__| |_| |  _ <| |___
>>> [ 13.702581] <  0.003927> | .__/|_| |_|\__, |\____\___/|_| \_\_____|
>>> [ 13.706573] <  0.003992> |_|          |___/
>>> [ 13.706622] <  0.000049>
>>> [ 13.725043] <  0.018421>
>>> [ 14.742608] <  1.017565>
>>
>> I made some changes suggested in this thread:
>>
>> - enable MMU in the bootloader
>> - use assembler optimized memcpy/memset in the bootloader
>> - start an uncompressed image
>> - disable IP autoconfiguration in the Kernel
>> - use lpj= command line parameter
>> - use static device nodes instead of udev
>> - skip some init scripts
>> - made the kernel smaller (I do not have both configs handy, so I do not
>>   know what exactly I changed)
>>
>> Already looks much better:
>>
>> [  0.000005] <  0.000005> U-Boot 2.0.0-rc10-00241-g3f10fe9-dirty (Aug
>> 18 2009 - 13:29:25)
>> [  0.000026] <  0.000021>
>> [  0.000041] <  0.000015> Board: Phytec phyCORE-i.MX27
>> [  0.000054] <  0.000013> cfi_probe: cfi_flash base: 0xc0000000 size:
>> 0x02000000
>> [  0.000067] <  0.000013> NAND device: Manufacturer ID: 0x20, Chip ID:
>> 0x36 (ST Micro NAND 64MiB 1,8V 8-bit)
>> [  0.000080] <  0.000013> imxfb@imxfb0: i.MX Framebuffer driver
>> [  0.000092] <  0.000012> dma_alloc: 0xa6f56e40 0x10000000
>> [  0.000105] <  0.000013> dma_alloc: 0xa6f57088 0x10000000
>> [  0.000118] <  0.000013> dev_protect: currently broken
>> [  0.000129] <  0.000011> Using environment in NOR Flash
>> [  0.000141] <  0.000012> initialising PLLs
>> [  0.128972] <  0.128831> Malloc space: 0xa6f00000 -> 0xa7f00000 (size
>> 16 MB)
>> [  0.128995] <  0.000023> Stack space : 0xa6ef8000 -> 0xa6f00000 (size
>> 32 kB)
>> [  0.129008] <  0.000013> running /env/bin/init...
>> [  0.224963] <  0.095955>
>> [  0.224984] <  0.000021> Hit any key to stop autoboot:  0
>> [  0.224999] <  0.000015> copy
>> [  0.592964] <  0.367965> done
>> [  0.652010] <  0.059046> Linux version
>> 2.6.31-rc4-00004-g05786f8-dirty (sha@octopus) (gcc version 4.3.2
>> (OSELAS.Toolchain-1.99.3) ) #206 PREEMPT Tue Aug 18 14:08:51 CEST 2009
> 
> So, this are ~0.6 s in boot loader and kernel copy until kernel starts,
> correct?
> 
> What's the size of the uncompressed kernel copied here?
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Dirk
> 
> Btw.: I tried to summarize some hints given in this thread in
> 
> http://elinux.org/Boot_Time#Boot_time_check_list
> 
> Please feel free to add and correct stuff!
> 

It's a good documentation, good work. From 14s to 5s I think it's a very
 good result. In reference to the previous response of Robert, I think
that it's a good thing to use a vanilla kernel and avoid strange and
specific or not mature solutions, but it needs to use the "right" tool
for the "right" platform. SquashFS is in mainline, mdev is part of
busybox and it's used in several projects. You cannot think to have a
normal desktop, imho some tools and some solutions must be very
specific, it's the embedded world. However your problems are very common
in the production environment.

Marco
--
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/