Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> Sitsofe Wheeler wrote:
>> Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
>>> acpi_ps_parse_aml() is called not so often (~10000usec), so maybe it 
>>> is a "sweet spot"
>>
>> The latency is pretty bad with this patch (assuming you did not want 
>> it applied on top of your previous patch)
>>
>> Here's the tail end of a full trace:
>> http://sucs.org/~sits/test/eeepc-debug/20080925/1250/latency_trace_all_tail.gz 
>> (3.3Mbytes but close 100Mbytes when decompressed)
>>  latency: 2912285 us, #1000038/5344107, CPU#0 | (M:desktop VP:0, 
>> KP:0, SP:0 HP:0
>> )
>>
>> Here's a complete (but filtered) trace:
>> http://sucs.org/~sits/test/eeepc-debug/20080925/1250/latency_trace.gz
>>  latency: 315814 us, #227600/227600, CPU#0 | (M:desktop VP:0, KP:0, 
>> SP:0 HP:0)
>>
> Ok, let's stick with previous patch then.
> It will be somewhat difficult to push though, because the code we 
> touched belongs to ACPICA (multi-platform code),
> so should not contain explicit Linux-only operands.
> If you agree that the place is right, I'll make proper patch with all 
> needed redirections to
> make ACPICA happy.
Ok, here is the ACPICA-friendly patch, please check if it's still good.

Regards,
Alex.