lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: ACPI: EC: GPE storm detected, transactions will use polling mode
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 4:06 AM, Alan Jenkins
<alan-jenkins@tuffmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday, 15 of November 2008, Alan Jenkins wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Alexey Starikovskiy <aystarik@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (cc linux-acpi)
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:16:17 -0800 "Justin P. Mattock"
>>>>> <justinmattock@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> just pulled the latest git today and am now noticing
>>>>>> the lovely gpe storm being triggered.(dmesg below);
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are any other effects observeable?
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume that 2.6.27 didn't do this.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It did. Justin even opened a bug -- #11724.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In case anyone else tries to follow that, it's actually #10724 :).
>>>
>>
>> Yes, the "transaction in interrupt context" patch fixed that IIRC and the
>> one
>> of the patches in the recet ACPI merge broke it again.
>>
>> Justin, can you see if reverting one or more of the following commits
>> helps:
>>
>>
>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=8517934ef6aaa28d6e055b98df65b31cedbd1372
>>
>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=06cf7d3c7af902939cd1754abcafb2464060cba8
>>
>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=0b7084ac67fb84f0cf2f8bc02d7e0dea8521dd2d
>>
>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=a2f93aeadf97e870ff385030633a73e21146815d
>>
>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=dd15f8c42af09031e27da5b4d697ce925511f2e1
>>
>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=f8248434e6a11d7cd314281be3b39bbcf82fc243
>>
>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=1cfe62c8010ac56e1bd3827e30386a87cc2f3594
>>
>> (please revert in this order)?
>>
>
> Be aware there's a real possibility this was only a cosmetic fix (and
> regression).
>
> I think the original GPE storm avoidance printed that message by default.
> Then the "transaction in interrupt context" made the message into a
> pr_debug(), - i.e. disabled it by default. And then my "make messages more
> useful when GPE storm is detected" re-enabled it.
>
> IIRC, this flip-flopping is contained within 2.6.28-rc. I.e. I don't think
> it will show up as a (cosmetic) regression when jumping straight from 2.6.27
> to 2.6.28. Though I suspect it will shows up between certain versions of
> -stable.
>
> Regards
> Alan
>

O.K. I think I was wrong about stating
this was not caused by the discharging and charging of the battery.
to retrace my steps
yesterday I pulled, then recompiled, then
let the system idle for a few, then once I moved the computer to the
other room,(unplugged/plugged the A/C adapter)
the light turned orange on the A/C adapter then once
the battery became fully charged(green light on A/C adapter)
the gpe storm was triggered. Once I saw the gpe storm, I rebooted
(under the impression the battery was in a good state),
instantly the gpe storm was triggered. leading me
to beleive this was something else.
So after seeing that and sending a post I used the
acpi_osi=Darwin option sat had a beer and worried about it tomorrow.
Now when I woke up, and saw the commits from rafael(thanks for the help)
I decided to make sure this was reproducible, So removing the acpi_osi option,
then let the system idled. To my amazement the
gpe storm was not triggered at all.
(even unplugging and plugging the A/C multiple times had no effect)
After a while thinking what the hell is going on here, I decided to discharge
the battery to around 97% or 5 min. and then charge to see if this
triggers the gpe storm. Well sure enough it did.(attached is dmesg);

So for now should I go and individually revert the commits; charge,
and discharge
to locate the culprit, or is this something completely different?

--
Justin P. Mattock
[unhandled content-type:application/octet-stream]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-15 19:43    [W:0.220 / U:8.584 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site