Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about adding a counter to grub_dprintf to make it easy to instrument
> GRUB and find which are the bottlenecks in boot time?
>
> Sidenote: perhaps it'd be a good idea to conditionalize all grub_dprintf
> calls with #ifdef DEBUG to obtain a smaller co
On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 19:19 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 17:59 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> >
> > > > Adding a complicated mechanism for having debug and non-debug images
> > > > looks like an overkill to me.
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 17:59 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> > > Adding a complicated mechanism for having debug and non-debug images
> > > looks like an overkill to me. It could create more problems than it
> > > would fix.
> >
> >
On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 17:59 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > Adding a complicated mechanism for having debug and non-debug images
> > looks like an overkill to me. It could create more problems than it
> > would fix.
>
> But then, what do you suggest? That we remove debug support altogether?
Ke
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 08:33:45PM +0300, Vesa Jääskeläinen wrote:
>
> One way to proceed here is to use debugger for the original benchmarking
> purpose.
>
> You would put timed breakpoints, when breakpoint is found, time would be
> recorded and then execution would be automatically continued.
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 01:13:34PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-06-29 at 13:22 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 05:20:51PM +0200, Javier Martín wrote:
>
> > > Whoops, sorry, I meant that grub_mkimage would create two core.img
> > > images, one per kernel.img ver
Pavel Roskin wrote:
On Sun, 2008-06-29 at 13:22 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 05:20:51PM +0200, Javier Martín wrote:
Whoops, sorry, I meant that grub_mkimage would create two core.img
images, one per kernel.img version, and then grub_install would copy
them as usual. The
On Sun, 2008-06-29 at 13:22 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 05:20:51PM +0200, Javier Martín wrote:
> > Whoops, sorry, I meant that grub_mkimage would create two core.img
> > images, one per kernel.img version, and then grub_install would copy
> > them as usual. Then grub_setu
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 05:20:51PM +0200, Javier Martín wrote:
> El jue, 26-06-2008 a las 16:08 +0200, Robert Millan escribió:
> > On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 04:35:07PM +0200, Javier Martín wrote:
> > >
> > > Why not modify the build system to create _two_ instances of kernel.img,
> > > one with and
El jue, 26-06-2008 a las 16:08 +0200, Robert Millan escribió:
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 04:35:07PM +0200, Javier Martín wrote:
> >
> > Why not modify the build system to create _two_ instances of kernel.img,
> > one with and another without debugging? grub_mkimage would create the
> > normal, smal
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 04:35:07PM +0200, Javier Martín wrote:
>
> Why not modify the build system to create _two_ instances of kernel.img,
> one with and another without debugging? grub_mkimage would create the
> normal, smaller core.img (without dprintf) for installing and embedding;
> and store
Javier Martín wrote:
El sáb, 21-06-2008 a las 16:19 +0200, Robert Millan escribió:
But space in post-mbr area is precious, and if we can save a bit, it means
less users who will run into trouble in first place.
Disclaimer: the following is just the product of brainstorming from a
mind torture
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Javier Martín <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El sáb, 21-06-2008 a las 16:19 +0200, Robert Millan escribió:
>> But space in post-mbr area is precious, and if we can save a bit, it means
>> less users who will run into trouble in first place.
>>
>
> Disclaimer: the foll
El sáb, 21-06-2008 a las 16:19 +0200, Robert Millan escribió:
> But space in post-mbr area is precious, and if we can save a bit, it means
> less users who will run into trouble in first place.
>
Disclaimer: the following is just the product of brainstorming from a
mind tortured by hours of study
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 02:42:34PM -0400, Isaac Dupree wrote:
> Robert Millan wrote:
> >How about adding a counter to grub_dprintf to make it easy to instrument
> >GRUB and find which are the bottlenecks in boot time?
> >
> >Sidenote: perhaps it'd be a good idea to conditionalize all grub_dprintf
>
Robert Millan wrote:
How about adding a counter to grub_dprintf to make it easy to instrument
GRUB and find which are the bottlenecks in boot time?
Sidenote: perhaps it'd be a good idea to conditionalize all grub_dprintf
calls with #ifdef DEBUG to obtain a smaller core.img. It's not hard to
ask
How about adding a counter to grub_dprintf to make it easy to instrument
GRUB and find which are the bottlenecks in boot time?
Sidenote: perhaps it'd be a good idea to conditionalize all grub_dprintf
calls with #ifdef DEBUG to obtain a smaller core.img. It's not hard to
ask a user to rebuild if
17 matches
Mail list logo
