Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86/smpboot: Fix announce_cpu() to printk() thelast "OK" properly
From: Borislav Petkov
Date: Thu Sep 26 2013 - 19:16:07 EST
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 08:29:36PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Indeed, that should be fixed.
Ok, how does a right alighment look like:
[ 0.072399] smpboot: Booting Node 0, Processors #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 OK
[ 0.617005] smpboot: Booting Node 1, Processors #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 OK
[ 1.230005] smpboot: Booting Node 2, Processors #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 OK
[ 1.835005] smpboot: Booting Node 3, Processors #24 #25 #26 #27 #28 #29 #30 #31 OK
[ 2.437005] smpboot: Booting Node 4, Processors #32 #33 #34 #35 #36 #37 #38 #39 OK
[ 3.053005] smpboot: Booting Node 5, Processors #40 #41 #42 #43 #44 #45 #46 #47 OK
[ 3.657009] smpboot: Booting Node 6, Processors #48 #49 #50 #51 #52 #53 #54 #55 OK
[ 4.256005] smpboot: Booting Node 7, Processors #56 #57 #58 #59 #60 #61 #62 #63 OK
?
With lockdep butting in-between it is still readable:
[ 0.063330] SMP alternatives: lockdep: fixing up alternatives
[ 0.064032] smpboot: Booting Node 0, Processors #1
[ 0.141231] SMP alternatives: lockdep: fixing up alternatives
[ 0.142007] #2
[ 0.230210] SMP alternatives: lockdep: fixing up alternatives
[ 0.231007] #3
[ 0.307237] SMP alternatives: lockdep: fixing up alternatives
[ 0.308007] #4
[ 0.384231] SMP alternatives: lockdep: fixing up alternatives
[ 0.385006] #5
[ 0.468237] SMP alternatives: lockdep: fixing up alternatives
[ 0.469007] #6
[ 0.545230] SMP alternatives: lockdep: fixing up alternatives
[ 0.546006] #7 OK
[ 0.626323] Brought up 8 CPUs
[ 0.627004] smpboot: Total of 8 processors activated (64217.00 BogoMIPS)
I admit the digits calculation is a bit clumsy but I didn't want to do
any log_10 crazy jumps through hoops and besides, it should be faster
this way:
--
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
index 6cacab671f9b..1cf5957b1035 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
@@ -653,16 +653,22 @@ static void announce_cpu(int cpu, int apicid)
{
static int current_node = -1;
int node = early_cpu_to_node(cpu);
- int max_cpu_present = find_last_bit(cpumask_bits(cpu_present_mask), NR_CPUS);
+ int num_digits;
if (system_state == SYSTEM_BOOTING) {
if (node != current_node) {
if (current_node > (-1))
pr_cont(" OK\n");
current_node = node;
- pr_info("Booting Node %3d, Processors ", node);
+ pr_info("Booting Node %3d, Processors", node);
}
- pr_cont(" #%4d%s", cpu, cpu == max_cpu_present ? " OK\n" : "");
+ num_digits = 1 + 1 * (cpu > 9) + 1 * (cpu > 99);
+
+ pr_cont("%*s#%d", 4 - num_digits, " ", cpu);
+
+ if (cpu == num_present_cpus() - 1)
+ pr_cont(" OK\n");
+
return;
} else
pr_info("Booting Node %d Processor %d APIC 0x%x\n",
--
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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/