Again, let's get it right before any optimizations. There are a few semaphores that appear to be possible candidates for spinlocks. The hardware lock is one. What I really mean by "getting rid of the OSL" is not so much #define-ing it away, but be performing a direct OS interface replacement when the time comes that the source is to be 100% integrated into the host OS. We still a ways away from that, however. > -----Original Message----- > From: Brown, Len > Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 3:33 PM > To: Moore, Robert > Cc: linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: ACPI locking > > > >We added the spinlock support for the GPE data structures for this > >reason, that the GPE data needed to be locked at interrupt level. > > > >If it's correct to do this with the hardware lock, then we should do > >this as well > > Agreed, that is the problem at hand. > > And this suggests that the other locks in ACPICA should be examined > to confirm that they really need a lock that can sleep, > or see if a simple spin-lock is appropriate for any of them too. > > > -- then cleanup the Linux OSL semaphore implementation, > >starting with the check for interrupt level. > > I think the cleanup here may involve not using the OSL > semaphore implementation for anything other than supporting > AML Acquire(), as the other locks in ACPICA should > not need any wrapper to invoke a simple mutex. I think this > is consistent with the quest to reduce the need for osl.c. > > -Len - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
