linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v4 0/6] ACPI: Add

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: <94F2FBAB4432B54E8AACC7DFDE6C92E346ACC6F9@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 May 2012 02:56:00 +0000
From:	"Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@...el.com>
To:	Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>,
	"shuahkhan@...il.com" <shuahkhan@...il.com>
CC:	"lenb@...nel.org" <lenb@...nel.org>,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	"liuj97@...il.com" <liuj97@...il.com>,
	"andi@...stfloor.org" <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 0/6] ACPI: Add _OST support for ACPI hotplug

It does not make any difference. Essentially, a get_handle is performed by evaluate_object anyway.



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Toshi Kani [mailto:toshi.kani@...com]
>Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 4:43 PM
>To: shuahkhan@...il.com
>Cc: Moore, Robert; lenb@...nel.org; linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org;
>bhelgaas@...gle.com; liuj97@...il.com; andi@...stfloor.org; linux-
>kernel@...r.kernel.org
>Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 0/6] ACPI: Add _OST support for ACPI hotplug
>
>On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 16:44 -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 22:27 +0000, Moore, Robert wrote:
>> > > > 2. Calling acpi_get_handle() on _OST prior to executing the method.
>> > > > This will ensure that this method only gets run if it is present
>> > > under
>> > > > the device in question. Coupled with what is already outlined in #1
>> > > > above, now _OST gets executed only when it is defined under the
>> > > device object.
>> > > > Example case in the existing code, please see
>> > > acpi_processor_ppc_ost()
>> > > > implementation.
>> > >
>> > > Yes, I did look at acpi_processor_ppc_ost() when I implemented the
>> > > function.  I believe calling acpi_get_handle() is redundant since
>> > > acpi_ns_get_node() is called within acpi_evaluate_object() as well.
>> > > acpi_evaluate_object() simply returns with AE_NOT_FOUND when _OST
>> > > method does not exist.
>> > >
>> >
>> > This is correct. If _OST does not exist, AE_NOT_FOUND will be returned
>from evaluate_object.
>>
>> Yes that is correct from the ACPI Spec and implementation point of view.
>> My thinking is that a call to acpi_get_handle() might not penalize the
>> OS as much as acpi_evaluate_object() would on systems that don't
>> actually implement _OST. In other words, acpi_get_handle() might not go
>> as deep as acpi_evaluate_object() would go into the ACPI layer, hence
>> might be a safer measure on platforms that don't actually implement this
>> optional method under all devices included in this patch set.
>>
>
>I do not think we need to worry about it.  The code difference is not
>that much, and this _OST path is limited to ACPI hotplug operations,
>which are infrequent events.  Automatic workload balancing can make
>frequent use of the operations, but is not frequent enough to make any
>difference here.  I think simpler code works fine.
>
>Thanks,
>-Toshi

--
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/