Re: [PATCH 1/4] ACPI: Add acpi_pr_() interfaces

Joe Perches
2012-07-19T16:34:52Z

On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 10:15 -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 18:38 -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
>
> >
> > This interface is defined in acpi/acpi_bus.h, which is intended for ACPI
> > drivers which make many ACPI calls to proceed when they are called at
> > run-time today. This interface does not change that, and I believe
> > acpi_get_name() is much faster compared to ACPI method calls these ACPI
> > drivers make in their normal code path. The extra work to call
> > acpi_get_name() is simply a noise in this case (if you try to measure),
> > and the use of this interface is limited in error paths of such ACPI
> > drivers.
>
> I understand the scope of the usage of this new interface. I don't think
> I am able to explain the problem I see with this interface as it gets
> used more and more from acpi drivers. Let me try another way.
>
> If understand the this patch set, if and when acpi drivers that
> currently use pr_* interfaces switch to using acpi_pr_*, the execution
> path goes from a what printk() does to the following:
>
> acpi_pr_*
> - setup static buffer
> - calls acpi_get_name()
> - acpi_get_name() calls acpi_ut_validate_buffer() and then calls
> acpi_ns_handle_to_pathname()
> - acpi_ns_handle_to_pathname() calls acpi_ns_validate_handle() followed
> by acpi_ns_get_pathname_length() and so on.
>
> I think this should give you a good idea of my concern. I think
> acpi_pr_* full functionality should be enabled under special cases such
> as some acpi_debug level setting or some other way, and not for default
> case. I propose the following:
>
> Make acpi_pr_* versions execute the full path to do acpi_get_name()
> conditionally and not as a default case.

or maybe cache one or two.

> To illustrate my point further, I currently see the following ACPI
> messages in my dmesg buffer on my laptop. I haven't taken the time to
> evaluate how many of them originate from acpi drivers, however I would
> not want to see all of these becoming acpi_pr_* versions that do more
> than what pr_* does today. I hope this explains my concern clearly.
>
> [ 0.000000] ACPI: RSDP 00000000000fc600 00024 (v02 HPQOEM)
> [ 0.000000] ACPI: XSDT 00000000bb7fe120 00084 (v01 HPQOEM SLIC-MPC
> 0000000F 01000013)

[120+ lines of ACPI stuff]

> [ 0.739844] ACPI: ACPI bus type pnp unregistered

I think ACPI is the noisiest subsystem.

I'd rather see this logging made quieter by conversion to
KERN_DEBUG or another selective mechanism.

There just aren't many ACPI_INFO calls around and that why
I thought it reasonable to convert the macro to call a
different named function.