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. -- 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
