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

Toshi Kani
2012-07-19T00:43:04Z

On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 17:18 -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 16:52 -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 16:40 -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 16:26 -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 15:59 -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 14:40 -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > > > > > This patch introduces acpi_pr_<level>(), where <level> is a message
> > > > > > level such as err/warn/info, to support improved logging messages
> > > > > > for ACPI, esp. in hotplug operations. acpi_pr_<level>() appends
> > > > > > "ACPI" prefix and ACPI object path to the messages. This improves
> > > > > > diagnostics in hotplug operations since it identifies an object that
> > > > > > caused an issue in a log file.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > acpi_pr_<level>() takes acpi_handle as an argument, which is passed
> > > > > > to ACPI hotplug notify handlers from the ACPI CA. Therefore, it is
> > > > > > always available unlike other kernel objects, such as device.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For example, the statement below
> > > > > > acpi_pr_err(handle, "Device don't exist, dropping EJECT\n");
> > > > > > logs an error message like this:
> > > > > > ACPI: \_SB_.SCK4.CPU4: Device don't exist, dropping EJECT
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > drivers/acpi/utils.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > include/acpi/acpi_bus.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > 2 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/utils.c b/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> > > > > > index 3e87c9c..4097266 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> > > > > > @@ -454,3 +454,35 @@ acpi_evaluate_hotplug_ost(acpi_handle handle, u32 source_event,
> > > > > > #endif
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_evaluate_hotplug_ost);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +/**
> > > > > > + * acpi_printk: Print messages with ACPI prefix and object path
> > > > > > + *
> > > > > > + * This function is intended to be called through acpi_pr_<level> macros.
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > +void
> > > > > > +acpi_printk(const char *level, acpi_handle handle, const char *fmt, ...)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > + struct va_format vaf;
> > > > > > + va_list args;
> > > > > > + struct acpi_buffer buffer = {ACPI_ALLOCATE_BUFFER};
> > > > > > + char *path;
> > > > > > + acpi_status ret;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + va_start(args, fmt);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + vaf.fmt = fmt;
> > > > > > + vaf.va = &args;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + ret = acpi_get_name(handle, ACPI_FULL_PATHNAME, &buffer);
> > > > >
> > > > > One big problem I see with this approach is now each acpi_printk() will
> > > > > result in a call to acpi_get_name() which will invoke several ACPI
> > > > > calls, including a call to acpi_ut_initialize_buffer() which allocates
> > > > > buffer. Is this really warranted? What is the performance impact of this
> > > > > change?
> > > >
> > > > Hi Shuah,
> > > >
> > > > This interface is intended to be used by acpi_pr_<level>(), which is
> > > > used for error, warning, debugging, etc. It is not intended to be used
> > > > in any performance path.
> > > >
> > >
> > > How does one enable this interface to see errors, warns, debugging? Is
> > > there a special mode kernel needs to run in? I am trying to understand
> > > what you mean by "not intended to be used in any performance path". Does
> > > one build a special kernel similar to CONFIG_VM_DEBUG (just happen to
> > > the one I could think off) ?
> >
> > acpi_pr_<level>() calls printk() with a corresponding message level,
> > such as KERN_ERR, KERN_WARNING and KERN_DEBUG, which is by definition
> > used for error, warning and debugging messages. Let me know if the
> > change log was not clear about this. Anyway, I think one should not use
> > a printk() in performance path in the first place...
>
> KERN_ERR, KERN_WARNING, and KERN_DEBUG are used at run-time. What
> happens when these new interfaces start getting used widely during
> run-time. In the case of a serious error, shouldn't the kernel do the
> minimum to print the message out and not call several acpi routines?

acpi_pr_<level>() does not replace pr_<level>(). When the kernel needs
the minimum to print the message out, it can continue to use the regular
pr_<level>() interface.

> This type of feature definitely makes sense for debug, but not for other
> cases KERN_ERR, KERN_WARNING case.

Can you elaborate why you think this interface does not make sense for
KERN_ERR and KERN_WARNING? As described in the change log, we need to
know which object caused an error in order to diagnose an issue. This
is a critical piece of the information to start analyzing.

Without this interface, error paths in the hotplug handlers would have
to call acpi_get_name() by itself in order to log the same information.
This is much more complicated and is not saving any time.

> My concern is all the extra work that is done whenever one of these
> interfaces is called. Can we limit this to special debug cases only.

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.

Thanks,
-Toshi

> -- Shuah
>