Return-Path: X-Original-To: alexey.y.starikovskiy@linux.intel.com Delivered-To: alexey.y.starikovskiy@linux.intel.com Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com (fmsmga001.fm.intel.com [10.253.24.23]) by linux.intel.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D8166A401C for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2006 10:56:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from fw.osdl.org (HELO fmsmga101.fm.intel.com) ([65.172.181.6]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Nov 2006 10:56:18 -0800 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAANWIYUVBrLUGiWdsb2JhbACBRosGAQEJDio Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.25]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Nov 2006 10:10:53 -0800 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,440,1157353200"; d="scan'208"; a="100474110:sNHT183012687" Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (fw.osdl.org [65.172.181.6]) by smtp.osdl.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id kAKI7fix019458 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2006 10:07:41 -0800 Received: from localhost (shell0.pdx.osdl.net [10.9.0.31]) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id kAKI7dnB027071 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2006 10:07:39 -0800 Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 10:07:39 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Alexey Starikovskiy Subject: Re: ACPI breakage (Re: 2.6.19-rc6: known regressions (v2)) In-Reply-To: <456043F7.1030105@linux.intel.com> Message-ID: References: <455FB44C.8050103@linux.intel.com> <456043F7.1030105@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.545 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-osdl_revision__1.105__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.159 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 On Sun, 19 Nov 2006, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: > > I agree to all your comments with one exception, please see below. Attached is > the reworked patch against latest git. Please test. Ok, this one works for me too, and looks much simpler. > Linus Torvalds wrote: > > And we might as well do it when we add an entry to the _deferred_ queue, no? > > acpi_os_execute() is called from interrupt context for insertion into > _deferred_ queue, so it's not possible to yield in it, no? Hmm. Yes. Anyway, the new patch looks acceptable, and certainly much simpler than trying to count events. It probably causes tons of new unnecessary scheduling events, but I doubt we really care. That said, what we _really_ want here is a "priority queue" for the events, and some way to put an event back on the queue while running it (eg ACPI "Sleep" event). But I guess the ACPI interpreter isn't done that way (ie you can't just push and pop ACPI state). Linus