[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <B407D583-A440-402B-AB35-D69BA464F5AD@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 07:31:35 -0800
From: "Justin P. Mattock" <justinmattock@...il.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Alexey Starikovskiy <aystarik@...il.com>,
Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@...fmail.co.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: ACPI: EC: GPE storm detected, transactions will use polling mode
Cool,
Then I'll just leave it as is
And move on to other tasks that I have. Thanks for the info and help
Regards;
justin P. Mattock
On Nov 16, 2008, at 4:44 AM, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> On Sunday, 16 of November 2008, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
>> Justin P. Mattock wrote:
>>> Well; reverting:
>>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=06cf7d3c7af902939cd1754abcafb2464060cba8
>>> is keeping the system from having a gpe storm
>>> (for at least four hours now);
>>> haven't had a chance to drain the battery and see
>>> the affects from that scenario.
>>>
>>>
>> Justin, by decreasing threshold, we just change how often
>> _detection_ of
>> the storm fires, not the storm itself.
>
> Yes, I think what happens is that we just detect the interrupt storm
> with the
> lower threshold, so the storm occured anyway previously, but it went
> unnoticed
> (not necessarily a good thing).
>
> There is nothing to worry about as long as the box works as expected.
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists