[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] ACPICA: don't cond_resched() when irq_disabled or in_atomic
Hi Pavel,

Please elaborate... Your comments "ugly as hell" are too often to be
There is only one use of ACPI_PREEMPTION_POINT(), and it is in the
ACPICA code,
which we all agreed to keep OS independent, thus the need for #define.
Do you see any other way to add preemption point without introducing
code into ACPICA?


Pavel Machek пишет:
> On Fri 2009-12-04 12:26:00, Xiaotian Feng wrote:
>> commit 8bd108d adds preemption point after each opcode parse, then
>> a sleeping function called from invalid context bug was founded
>> during suspend/resume stage. this was fixed in commit abe1dfa by
>> don't cond_resched when irq_disabled. But recent commit 138d156 changes
>> the behaviour to don't cond_resched when in_atomic. This makes the
>> sleeping function called from invalid context bug happen again, which
>> is reported in
>> The fix is to cond_sched() only when preemptible, which means not in
>> irq_disabled or in_atomic.
>> @@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ static inline void *acpi_os_acquire_object(acpi_cache_t * cache)
>> #include <linux/hardirq.h>
>> do { \
>> - if (!in_atomic_preempt_off()) \
>> + if (preemptible()) \
>> cond_resched(); \
>> } while (0)
> Note that this is ugly as hell. It means we have two acpi
> interpretters in kernel, one for preemptible, one for non-preemptible,
> with very different behaviour.
> It would be slightly nicer to pass the "preemptible" info explicitely,
> as function parameters.
> It would be even better not to need that difference.
> Pavel

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-10 19:01    [W:0.098 / U:4.492 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site