public inbox for linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* RE: Method execution failed
@ 2004-08-06 17:30 Moore, Robert
       [not found] ` <37F890616C995246BE76B3E6B2DBE055019E92C0-sBd4vmA9Se5Qxe9IK+vIArfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org>
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Moore, Robert @ 2004-08-06 17:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Alex Williamson; +Cc: acpi-devel

A later version of acpi fixed the init_globals issue, static init only
for the runtime options


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Williamson [mailto:alex.williamson-VXdhtT5mjnY@public.gmane.org]
> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 10:27 AM
> To: Moore, Robert
> Cc: acpi-devel
> Subject: RE: [ACPI] Method execution failed
> 
> On Fri, 2004-08-06 at 10:07 -0700, Moore, Robert wrote:
> > This is a bug in the ASL/AML for this machine.  Methods that are
> > declared "NotSerialized" are forbidden from creating objects within
the
> > namespace (or at least forbidden from creating names that will
clash).
> 
>   Argh, I'll bug our firmware guys it that's the problem.
> 
> > There is a fix to the ACPI code that detects this problem and
changes
> > "NotSerialized" to "Serialized" on the fly.  There is also a runtime
> > option to force all control methods to be "Serialized".
> 
>    I tried adding acpi_serialize to my boot options, I see "ACPI:
> serialize enabled" in dmesg.  However, it still breaks when calling
> methods concurrently.  Looks like acpi_ut_init_globals() is likely
> reseting later on.  How do I enable the on-the-fly checking?  Thanks
for
> the quick response!
> 
> 	Alex
> 
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org [mailto:acpi-devel-
> > > admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Alex Williamson
> > > Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 9:48 AM
> > > To: acpi-devel
> > > Subject: [ACPI] Method execution failed
> > >
> > >
> > >    I think there's a locking issue w/ namespace for concurrent
calls
> > to
> > > acpi_evaluate_object().  FWIW, these concurrent calls are coming
in
> > > through my acpi sysfs patch, so it could be a bug in that code.
If I
> > > serialize calls into acpi_evaluate_object(), it works fine, but I
> > don't
> > > see a global lock for this, so I think the problem is more
general.
> > If
> > > I make lots of calls to evaluate the same _BBN object, I start
seeing
> > > these:
> > >
> > > ACPI-0279: *** Error: Looking up [LBAS] in namespace,
> > AE_ALREADY_EXISTS
> > > ACPI-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed [\LBA_.BBN_] (Node
> > > e00000407fd
> > >
> > > This starts at acpi_ds_load1_begin_op() doing a path lookup,
> > presumably
> > > expecting not to find the path with flag ACPI_NS_ERROR_IF_FOUND.
The
> > > AML for the method is:
> > >
> > > 0000000: a45c 2e4c 4241 5f42 424e 5f5e 5f55 4944  .\.LBA_BBN_^_UID
> > >
> > > The first part of the _SB/LBA/BBN_ AML looks like this:
> > >
> > > 0000000: 084c 4241 5311 030a 408a 4c42 4153 0056  .LBAS...@.LBAS.V
> > > 0000010: 414c 448a 4c42 4153 0a04 4c46 4c47 8a4c  ALD.LBAS..LFLG.L
> > > ...
> > >
> > > The LBA/BBN_ method appears to make an object named LBAS.  When
> > calling
> > > this multiple times, each instance wants to not find this object
and
> > > then create it.  However, the namespace lock is given up around
method
> > > execution, so it seems we have some races.  Am I completely mis-
> > > interpreting the problem, or does this sound plausible?  I don't
> > really
> > > know how to read AML, so this is just a guess.  Do we need to be
more
> > > stringent on locking namespace, or is there a bug in the AML I'm
> > > calling?  Thanks,
> > >
> > > 	Alex
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alex Williamson                             HP Linux & Open Source
Lab
> >
> --
> Alex Williamson                             HP Linux & Open Source Lab



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by OSTG. Have you noticed the changes on
Linux.com, ITManagersJournal and NewsForge in the past few weeks? Now,
one more big change to announce. We are now OSTG- Open Source Technology
Group. Come see the changes on the new OSTG site. www.ostg.com

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* RE: Method execution failed
@ 2004-08-06 17:07 Moore, Robert
       [not found] ` <37F890616C995246BE76B3E6B2DBE055019E9249-sBd4vmA9Se5Qxe9IK+vIArfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org>
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Moore, Robert @ 2004-08-06 17:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Alex Williamson, acpi-devel

This is a bug in the ASL/AML for this machine.  Methods that are
declared "NotSerialized" are forbidden from creating objects within the
namespace (or at least forbidden from creating names that will clash).

There is a fix to the ACPI code that detects this problem and changes
"NotSerialized" to "Serialized" on the fly.  There is also a runtime
option to force all control methods to be "Serialized".

Bob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org [mailto:acpi-devel-
> admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Alex Williamson
> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 9:48 AM
> To: acpi-devel
> Subject: [ACPI] Method execution failed
> 
> 
>    I think there's a locking issue w/ namespace for concurrent calls
to
> acpi_evaluate_object().  FWIW, these concurrent calls are coming in
> through my acpi sysfs patch, so it could be a bug in that code.  If I
> serialize calls into acpi_evaluate_object(), it works fine, but I
don't
> see a global lock for this, so I think the problem is more general.
If
> I make lots of calls to evaluate the same _BBN object, I start seeing
> these:
> 
> ACPI-0279: *** Error: Looking up [LBAS] in namespace,
AE_ALREADY_EXISTS
> ACPI-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed [\LBA_.BBN_] (Node
> e00000407fd
> 
> This starts at acpi_ds_load1_begin_op() doing a path lookup,
presumably
> expecting not to find the path with flag ACPI_NS_ERROR_IF_FOUND.  The
> AML for the method is:
> 
> 0000000: a45c 2e4c 4241 5f42 424e 5f5e 5f55 4944  .\.LBA_BBN_^_UID
> 
> The first part of the _SB/LBA/BBN_ AML looks like this:
> 
> 0000000: 084c 4241 5311 030a 408a 4c42 4153 0056  .LBAS...@.LBAS.V
> 0000010: 414c 448a 4c42 4153 0a04 4c46 4c47 8a4c  ALD.LBAS..LFLG.L
> ...
> 
> The LBA/BBN_ method appears to make an object named LBAS.  When
calling
> this multiple times, each instance wants to not find this object and
> then create it.  However, the namespace lock is given up around method
> execution, so it seems we have some races.  Am I completely mis-
> interpreting the problem, or does this sound plausible?  I don't
really
> know how to read AML, so this is just a guess.  Do we need to be more
> stringent on locking namespace, or is there a bug in the AML I'm
> calling?  Thanks,
> 
> 	Alex
> 
> --
> Alex Williamson                             HP Linux & Open Source Lab


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by OSTG. Have you noticed the changes on
Linux.com, ITManagersJournal and NewsForge in the past few weeks? Now,
one more big change to announce. We are now OSTG- Open Source Technology
Group. Come see the changes on the new OSTG site. www.ostg.com

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Method execution failed
@ 2004-08-06 16:48 Alex Williamson
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Alex Williamson @ 2004-08-06 16:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: acpi-devel


   I think there's a locking issue w/ namespace for concurrent calls to
acpi_evaluate_object().  FWIW, these concurrent calls are coming in
through my acpi sysfs patch, so it could be a bug in that code.  If I
serialize calls into acpi_evaluate_object(), it works fine, but I don't
see a global lock for this, so I think the problem is more general.  If
I make lots of calls to evaluate the same _BBN object, I start seeing
these:

ACPI-0279: *** Error: Looking up [LBAS] in namespace, AE_ALREADY_EXISTS
ACPI-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed [\LBA_.BBN_] (Node e00000407fd

This starts at acpi_ds_load1_begin_op() doing a path lookup, presumably
expecting not to find the path with flag ACPI_NS_ERROR_IF_FOUND.  The
AML for the method is:

0000000: a45c 2e4c 4241 5f42 424e 5f5e 5f55 4944  .\.LBA_BBN_^_UID

The first part of the _SB/LBA/BBN_ AML looks like this:

0000000: 084c 4241 5311 030a 408a 4c42 4153 0056  .LBAS...@.LBAS.V
0000010: 414c 448a 4c42 4153 0a04 4c46 4c47 8a4c  ALD.LBAS..LFLG.L
...

The LBA/BBN_ method appears to make an object named LBAS.  When calling
this multiple times, each instance wants to not find this object and
then create it.  However, the namespace lock is given up around method
execution, so it seems we have some races.  Am I completely mis-
interpreting the problem, or does this sound plausible?  I don't really
know how to read AML, so this is just a guess.  Do we need to be more
stringent on locking namespace, or is there a bug in the AML I'm
calling?  Thanks,

	Alex

-- 
Alex Williamson                             HP Linux & Open Source Lab



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by OSTG. Have you noticed the changes on
Linux.com, ITManagersJournal and NewsForge in the past few weeks? Now,
one more big change to announce. We are now OSTG- Open Source Technology
Group. Come see the changes on the new OSTG site. www.ostg.com

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-08-06 22:02 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-08-06 17:30 Method execution failed Moore, Robert
     [not found] ` <37F890616C995246BE76B3E6B2DBE055019E92C0-sBd4vmA9Se5Qxe9IK+vIArfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org>
2004-08-06 18:31   ` Len Brown
2004-08-06 22:02     ` Alex Williamson
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-08-06 17:07 Moore, Robert
     [not found] ` <37F890616C995246BE76B3E6B2DBE055019E9249-sBd4vmA9Se5Qxe9IK+vIArfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org>
2004-08-06 17:27   ` Alex Williamson
2004-08-06 16:48 Alex Williamson

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox