linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ACPICA: don't cond_resched() when irq_disabled or in

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4B217A2A.2040708@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:46:02 -0800
From:	"Justin P. Mattock" <justinmattock@...il.com>
To:	Alexey Starikovskiy <aystarik@...il.com>
CC:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Xiaotian Feng <dfeng@...hat.com>,
	lenb@...nel.org, ming.m.lin@...el.com, robert.moore@...el.com,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPICA: don't cond_resched() when irq_disabled or in_atomic

On 12/10/09 10:37, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> Pavel Machek пишет:
>> On Thu 2009-12-10 20:58:45, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Pavel,
>>>
>>> Please elaborate... Your comments "ugly as hell" are too often to be
>>> specific...
>>> 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
>>> Linux-specific
>>> code into ACPICA?
>>>
>>
>> I believe we want linux-specific code in acpica at this point.
>>
>>
> The point there we call cond_resched() in ACPICA is an interpreter parse
> loop. This parse loop may be executed from within atomic context and even
> with interrupts off. In this case, cond_resched() should not be called
> to not make
> might_sleep() guards angry.
>
> Please post the code, which will do the above and will not look "ugly as
> hell".
> I still don't follow your vague comments.
>> (Or maybe... I guess other systems have concept of preemption and not
>> all actions are permitted from all contexts, so maybe something like
>> that would be important for them, too?)
>>
> None of them cared about it up to this point.
> With the macro above we allowed them to follow Linux, but to go or not
> is their call.
>
> Regards,
> Alex.
> --
> 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/
>

o.k. I went did a pull to update
the kernel, and then changed
aclinux.h to the above post.

I'm am not seeing this warning message
upon wake-up.
but with the acpi merge stuff with
acpi_walk_namespace seems to break nvidia
(nvidia's problem now)

there is also some thing where the machine
takes a good 30 secs or so to wake up
(not sure if this is from the updated patch)
in dmesg I see:

platform microcode: firmware requesting intel-ucode/06-17-0a
firmware microcode: parent mocrocode should not be sleeping.

I'm thinking I need something in /lib/firmare

Justin P. Mattock
--
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/