From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757706AbcASVLS (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2016 16:11:18 -0500 Received: from mezzanine.sirena.org.uk ([106.187.55.193]:34362 "EHLO mezzanine.sirena.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757269AbcASVLJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2016 16:11:09 -0500 Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 21:10:49 +0000 From: Mark Brown To: Steve Muckle Cc: Juri Lelli , Catalin Marinas , Vincent Guittot , Mark Rutland , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Russell King - ARM Linux , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Peter Zijlstra , Will Deacon , linux-kernel , Dietmar Eggemann , Rob Herring , Sudeep Holla , Morten Rasmussen , LAK Message-ID: <20160119211049.GX6588@sirena.org.uk> References: <1452262172-31861-1-git-send-email-juri.lelli@arm.com> <56994D87.6000709@linaro.org> <20160118151316.GD7159@e106622-lin> <20160118163014.GA10332@e106622-lin> <20160119105941.GA28845@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20160119112323.GB8573@e106622-lin> <20160119142933.GF8573@e106622-lin> <569E92FF.4000006@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="xzSe+wpn+kb4oFkG" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <569E92FF.4000006@linaro.org> X-Cookie: APL hackers do it in the quad. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2a01:348:6:8808:fab::3 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: broonie@sirena.org.uk Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] CPUs capacity information for heterogeneous systems X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mezzanine.sirena.org.uk) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --xzSe+wpn+kb4oFkG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:48:15AM -0800, Steve Muckle wrote: > On 01/19/2016 06:29 AM, Juri Lelli wrote: > > I'm generally seeing ~1sec increase in boot time for 1 and practically > > no difference for 2 (even after having added patches that provide > > runtime performance improvements). > One second is considerable IMO. Aside from the general desire to have > shorter boot times on any platform there are environments like > automotive where boot time is critical. Yeah, definitely. Is this actually blocking boot and if so can we arrange to do this in parallel with other activity (with likely knock on effects on reproducibility...)? --xzSe+wpn+kb4oFkG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWnqZYAAoJECTWi3JdVIfQq6sH/0dYYzSGQorNniustWzVIFaQ ZgINqGaDEQnR91pYMeZycfco/du7UpU99z8ncZJWT4ok9oyEJAxVitFmaIV/5IMY d6N+DNE+diqbz0Yf9QGVMiqAvAFwJPdjrRsazGcXVBR9jB5iJZxZytLJkGfjx3i+ zXFUfHraUGaNua41Nh+iY2uSqHyDDmeJAObWaAKJWNvmBVi5sWG7B/0TuYZTLH0B vE8VfBk40jMMJvt6m3A0v9dLQr6nyH/g5u7Fjb+cV/CsZEYVi78zKQ7TBby3SWw9 ZpMIOifv2pieDJebMKc1cmMDDUBlDo+be0QS7sAeshNF/6W0Ull1uOAYmSvzLHM= =j3dl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --xzSe+wpn+kb4oFkG--