[lkml]   [2010]   [Dec]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/5] PNP: HP nx6325 fixup: reserve unreported resources
    On Wednesday, December 15, 2010 12:03:15 am Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <> wrote:
    > >
    > > I don't know whether the other patches in this series make you
    > > unhappy. I'm really not happy with how I implemented the avoidance
    > > of ACPI devices when doing PCI allocation, but I do think we need
    > > to avoid them *somehow*, and I was looking for a minimal quick
    > > fix at this point in the cycle.
    > So the "avoid ACPI devices" part makes sense, and doesn't involved
    > quirks, so I don't hate it at all the same way I hated the HP quirk.
    > However, I hate how it makes the allocation logic opaque. You can no
    > longer tell from the regular non-debug dmesg and the /proc/iomem _why_
    > something got allocated the way it did, because there are hidden
    > rules. That makes things awkward, methinks.
    > Also, quite frankly, I wonder what happens after release when somebody
    > shows another machine that simply stopped working because the
    > allocation strategy didn't work for it. The hw coverage that -rc6 gets
    > is tiny compared to a real release.
    > IOW, what's the long-term strategy for this? The only sane long-term
    > strategy I can see is the one we have _always_ done, which is to try
    > to populate the memory resource tree with what simply matches reality.
    > The whole "ok, we know the hardware better than the BIOS does" is a
    > _stable_ strategy. In contrast, the things you propose are NOT stable
    > strategies, they all depend on basically "we match windows exactly
    > and/or trust ACPI". Both of which are *known* to be failing models.
    > That's why I'm somewhat upset. Your whole strategy seems to depend on
    > a known broken model. We _know_ ACPI tables are crap much of the time.
    > So we know that "avoiding ACPI resources" is inevitably insufficient.
    > And that's why I hate the "switch everything around" model. Yes, we
    > have a known way to fix things up - namely to actually detect the
    > hardware itself properly when firmware inevitably screws up - but the
    > very act of switching things around will pretty much guarantee that
    > all our years of effort is of dubious value, and we'll end up finding
    > other laptops that used to work and no longer does.
    > Only switching around when _CRS is used is possible, and shouldn't
    > cause any regressions if we continue to default to not using _CRS. But
    > you want to switch that default around at some point, don't you? At
    > which point we'll be up sh*t creek again. See what I'm saying?
    > Which all makes me suspect that we'd be much better off just doing the
    > bottom-up allocation even for _CRS. And maybe CRS works fine then when
    > we combine our hardware knowledge with the ACPI region avoidance.

    ACPI devices tend to be at high addresses, so allocating top-down
    is definitely more dangerous unless we explicitly avoid them. I
    should have realized that and done something like patches 1-3 of
    this series before the top-down patches.

    Doing it bottom-up would very likely work better than the "top-down
    without avoiding ACPI regions" model we currently have, at least in
    the short term. We *would* have to do something to avoid E820
    reservations to fix this:,
    but that's doable.

    So here's my proposal for .37:
    - Keep the current state of _CRS enabled by default (for 2008
    and newer machines).
    - Allocate bottom-up always
    - Avoid E820 reservations

    That should fix all the regressions I'm aware of. I'll work on
    the patches this afternoon.


     \ /
      Last update: 2010-12-15 19:21    [W:0.028 / U:1.440 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site