[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0811261729550.3895@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:37:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 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?
-Len
ps. I'll put this particular fix in my tree now.
--
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