From: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: Luming Yu <luming.yu@intel.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@hp.com>,
Robert Moore <robert.moore@intel.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@hp.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
ACPI Developers <acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: Userspace ACPI interpreter ( was RE: [ACPI] [RFC] dev_acpi: support for userspace access to acpi)
Date: 29 Oct 2004 00:48:14 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1099025292.5402.200.camel@d845pe> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20041028152404.GB7902@thunk.org>
Re: why would we want a user-space interpreter?
I don't see any strong reasons. This is sort of an indulgent "what if"
topic...
Sure page-able memory is better to use than locked down kernel memory.
Indeed, if the target system doesn't support ACPI at all, then we could
free all of ACPI's memory (static sizes listed below). But this
configuration is becoming less common over time, not more common.
And if you've got a tiny system w/o ACPI, you'd probably just build with
CONFIG_ACPI=n rather than running a general-purpose ACPI-enabled kernel.
[ It would be sort of neat if we could built the core ACPI support in
some kind of modular way such that that we could have it at boot-time,
if we need it, but optionally unload it at run-time if it turned out the
target system didn't need it. ]
I suppose that a crash in the kernel-mode-interpreter would kill the
system. But I'm not aware of any such failures today and we fix those
pretty quickly when they do happen. From a high-level view, however,
Luming's simplicity=stability argument has some merit when you add in
things like memory leaks, stack overflows and all the other system
killing things that could potentially happen in the kernel.
In the kernel we currently have an issue running AML with interrupts off
-- can't do it b/c arbitrary AML could require allocating memory and
sleeping. But this issue probably has a solution and by itself doesn't
justify a user-land interpreter.
One could argue that the _policy_ drivers -- the modules listed below
should live in user-space because they implement policy. This, however,
is a philosophical, rather than practical, argument.
Re: why would we NOT want a user-space interpreter?
We need one in the kernel to boot the system anyway, so why have two?
Synchronization and concurrency in the kernel is well controlled.
No issues with AML accessing arbitrary ports and addresses when running
in the kernel.
-Len
---
CONFIG_ACPI_DEBUG=n
Loadable Module Sizes:
text data bss dec hex filename
1072 324 4 1400 578 drivers/acpi/ac.o
8511 1624 20 10155 27ab drivers/acpi/asus_acpi.o
5227 216 4 5447 1547 drivers/acpi/battery.o
2006 452 16 2474 9aa drivers/acpi/button.o
956 216 4 1176 498 drivers/acpi/fan.o
9714 1057 372 11143 2b87 drivers/acpi/ibm_acpi.o
9465 1012 128 10605 296d drivers/acpi/processor.o
5891 868 8 6767 1a6f drivers/acpi/thermal.o
3044 72 20 3136 c40 drivers/acpi/toshiba_acpi.o
7824 1348 4 9176 23d8 drivers/acpi/video.o
Static Kernel Size:
text data bss dec hex filename
144533 5608 4920 155061 25db5 drivers/acpi/built-in.o
CONFIG_ACPI_DEBUG=y
text data bss dec hex filename
2234 356 4 2594 a22 drivers/acpi/ac.o
8511 1624 20 10155 27ab drivers/acpi/asus_acpi.o
7686 248 4 7938 1f02 drivers/acpi/battery.o
3420 484 16 3920 f50 drivers/acpi/button.o
1886 248 4 2138 85a drivers/acpi/fan.o
18508 1044 128 19680 4ce0 drivers/acpi/processor.o
11119 868 8 11995 2edb drivers/acpi/thermal.o
3044 72 20 3136 c40 drivers/acpi/toshiba_acpi.o
Static Kernel Size:
text data bss dec hex filename
282285 6636 5112 294033 47c91 drivers/acpi/built-in.o
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-10-29 4:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-10-28 4:04 Userspace ACPI interpreter ( was RE: [ACPI] [RFC] dev_acpi: support for userspace access to acpi) Yu, Luming
2004-10-28 5:37 ` Len Brown
[not found] ` <418085B0.30208-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
2004-10-28 15:24 ` Userspace ACPI interpreter ( was " Theodore Ts'o
2004-10-29 4:48 ` Len Brown [this message]
2004-10-29 4:58 ` Andi Kleen
2004-10-28 15:18 ` Bjorn Helgaas
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-10-29 2:51 Yu, Luming
2004-10-31 21:29 ` Userspace ACPI interpreter ( was RE: [ACPI] " Pavel Machek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1099025292.5402.200.camel@d845pe \
--to=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=alex.williamson@hp.com \
--cc=bjorn.helgaas@hp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luming.yu@intel.com \
--cc=robert.moore@intel.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox