On Saturday, 15 of November 2008, Justin Mattock wrote: > On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 4:06 AM, Alan Jenkins > <alan-jenkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> > >> On Saturday, 15 of November 2008, Alan Jenkins wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Alexey Starikovskiy <aystarik@xxxxxxxxx> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Andrew Morton wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> (cc linux-acpi) > >>>>> > >>>>> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:16:17 -0800 "Justin P. Mattock" > >>>>> <justinmattock@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> just pulled the latest git today and am now noticing > >>>>>> the lovely gpe storm being triggered.(dmesg below); > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Are any other effects observeable? > >>>>> > >>>>> I assume that 2.6.27 didn't do this. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> It did. Justin even opened a bug -- #11724. > >>>> > >>> > >>> In case anyone else tries to follow that, it's actually #10724 :). > >>> > >> > >> Yes, the "transaction in interrupt context" patch fixed that IIRC and the > >> one > >> of the patches in the recet ACPI merge broke it again. > >> > >> Justin, can you see if reverting one or more of the following commits > >> helps: > >> > >> > >> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=8517934ef6aaa28d6e055b98df65b31cedbd1372 > >> > >> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=06cf7d3c7af902939cd1754abcafb2464060cba8 > >> > >> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=0b7084ac67fb84f0cf2f8bc02d7e0dea8521dd2d > >> > >> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=a2f93aeadf97e870ff385030633a73e21146815d > >> > >> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=dd15f8c42af09031e27da5b4d697ce925511f2e1 > >> > >> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=f8248434e6a11d7cd314281be3b39bbcf82fc243 > >> > >> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=1cfe62c8010ac56e1bd3827e30386a87cc2f3594 > >> > >> (please revert in this order)? > >> > > > > Be aware there's a real possibility this was only a cosmetic fix (and > > regression). > > > > I think the original GPE storm avoidance printed that message by default. > > Then the "transaction in interrupt context" made the message into a > > pr_debug(), - i.e. disabled it by default. And then my "make messages more > > useful when GPE storm is detected" re-enabled it. > > > > IIRC, this flip-flopping is contained within 2.6.28-rc. I.e. I don't think > > it will show up as a (cosmetic) regression when jumping straight from 2.6.27 > > to 2.6.28. Though I suspect it will shows up between certain versions of > > -stable. > > > > Regards > > Alan > > > > O.K. I think I was wrong about stating > this was not caused by the discharging and charging of the battery. > to retrace my steps > yesterday I pulled, then recompiled, then > let the system idle for a few, then once I moved the computer to the > other room,(unplugged/plugged the A/C adapter) > the light turned orange on the A/C adapter then once > the battery became fully charged(green light on A/C adapter) > the gpe storm was triggered. Once I saw the gpe storm, I rebooted > (under the impression the battery was in a good state), > instantly the gpe storm was triggered. leading me > to beleive this was something else. > So after seeing that and sending a post I used the > acpi_osi=Darwin option sat had a beer and worried about it tomorrow. > Now when I woke up, and saw the commits from rafael(thanks for the help) > I decided to make sure this was reproducible, So removing the acpi_osi option, > then let the system idled. To my amazement the > gpe storm was not triggered at all. > (even unplugging and plugging the A/C multiple times had no effect) > After a while thinking what the hell is going on here, I decided to discharge > the battery to around 97% or 5 min. and then charge to see if this > triggers the gpe storm. Well sure enough it did.(attached is dmesg); > > So for now should I go and individually revert the commits; charge, > and discharge > to locate the culprit, or is this something completely different? Well, you have only one "ACPI: EC: GPE storm detected, transactions will use polling mode" message in the log, so the EC code seems to work as expected and you _really_ have an interrupt storm that is worked around. Not sure what's causing it to happen, though. Thanks, Rafael -- 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
