[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: acpi_evaluate_integer broken by design

> > Now I know why I had strange "scheduling in atomic" problems:
> > acpi_evaluate_integer() does malloc(..., irqs_disabled() ? GFP_ATOMIC
> > : GFP_KERNEL)... which is (of course) broken.
> That is kinda weird. When did this all start happening?

> > There's no way to reliably tell if we need GFP_ATOMIC or not from
> > code, this one for example fails to detect spinlocks held.

> Len, this looks like 2.6.28 material. But given the poor quality of
> the changelog it is hard to be sure about this. Why isn't everyone
> seeing these warnings? What did Pavel do to provoke these alleged
> warnings? Nobody knows...

I don't know know why pavel sees this and nobody else --
maybe something unusual he's doing with suspend?

The reason that the ACPI code is littered with bogus
irqs_disabled() ? GFP_ATOMIC : GFP_KERNEL)
is because, like boot, resume starts life with interrupts off.

I would prefer that resume and boot handle this the same way,
with system_state. However, a few years ago when I suggested
using system_state for resume, Andrew thought that was a very
bad idea. Andrew, do you still feel that way?


ps. I'll put this particular fix in my tree now.

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-26 23:41    [W:0.065 / U:2.760 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site