From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757562AbZAVKYY (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jan 2009 05:24:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755491AbZAVKYQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jan 2009 05:24:16 -0500 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.175]:19361 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754659AbZAVKYP (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jan 2009 05:24:15 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=xees2HLH9d9QjetlrOsD5OpbKiJFlyHwx+JC6/Ct4al2vOY/FJ+xawwulsNWh4oW4T qmN/T9HJThI2rZ1tuiCPeiCvmR687NFintO2dUdjhT4Xb3WSnr1IF/Z4lnSMfFcPNAyq yyCZxc6OjzFqyXi9Ej1BTRBcvvSIoD6tc80uo= Message-ID: <4978499E.2040808@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 11:25:34 +0100 From: Jacek Luczak User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexey Starikovskiy CC: LKML , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , len.brown@intel.com Subject: Re: [ACPI] GPE storm detected on FS Amilo Pro References: <4977352B.1040303@gmail.com> <49778AAF.5000604@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <49778AAF.5000604@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Alex, Alexey Starikovskiy pisze: > Hi Jacek, > > You did not receive "GPE storm detected" message in earlier kernel only > because > there was no detection of it. You can check if you have one by enabling > "#define DEBUG" at the beginning of the /drivers/acpi/ec.c and looking > into dmesg. I know, I was bit confused as I've seen that message before. I've double checked and found that it appeared while I was fixing some stuff in 2.6.26 release cycle, mea culpa. > If there is no storm, > you should see ony 2-3 interrupt messages per single transaction. Storm > detector fires up at 8 excess interrupts. > thanks for your answer, it was exactly what I was looking for. While I was doing that 2.6.26 work I've found that IRQ 19 (sata ahci chip) is doing some ugly stuff, I've reported that and stopped in half of my debug as I didn't had more time to work on that. There was some ,,nobody cared'' bugs and so one, I will return to that problem now and check if it's still present. All those IRQ problems were appearing with suspend/resume. Nevertheless it isn't a point here. -Jacek