Re: [PATCH] debug: More properly delay for secondary CPUs

2016-10-19 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:41:21 -0700 Douglas Anderson wrote: > We've got a delay loop waiting for secondary CPUs. That loop uses > loops_per_jiffy. However, loops_per_jiffy doesn't actually mean how > many tight loops make up a jiffy on all architectures. It is quite >

Re: [PATCH] debug: More properly delay for secondary CPUs

2016-10-19 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:41:21 -0700 Douglas Anderson wrote: > We've got a delay loop waiting for secondary CPUs. That loop uses > loops_per_jiffy. However, loops_per_jiffy doesn't actually mean how > many tight loops make up a jiffy on all architectures. It is quite > common to see things

Re: [PATCH] debug: More properly delay for secondary CPUs

2016-10-18 Thread Daniel Thompson
On 14/10/16 19:41, Douglas Anderson wrote: We've got a delay loop waiting for secondary CPUs. That loop uses loops_per_jiffy. However, loops_per_jiffy doesn't actually mean how many tight loops make up a jiffy on all architectures. It is quite common to see things like this in the boot log:

Re: [PATCH] debug: More properly delay for secondary CPUs

2016-10-18 Thread Daniel Thompson
On 14/10/16 19:41, Douglas Anderson wrote: We've got a delay loop waiting for secondary CPUs. That loop uses loops_per_jiffy. However, loops_per_jiffy doesn't actually mean how many tight loops make up a jiffy on all architectures. It is quite common to see things like this in the boot log:

[PATCH] debug: More properly delay for secondary CPUs

2016-10-14 Thread Douglas Anderson
We've got a delay loop waiting for secondary CPUs. That loop uses loops_per_jiffy. However, loops_per_jiffy doesn't actually mean how many tight loops make up a jiffy on all architectures. It is quite common to see things like this in the boot log: Calibrating delay loop (skipped), value

[PATCH] debug: More properly delay for secondary CPUs

2016-10-14 Thread Douglas Anderson
We've got a delay loop waiting for secondary CPUs. That loop uses loops_per_jiffy. However, loops_per_jiffy doesn't actually mean how many tight loops make up a jiffy on all architectures. It is quite common to see things like this in the boot log: Calibrating delay loop (skipped), value