On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 17:43 -0600, Toshi Kani wrote: > On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 16:32 -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: > > On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 14:51 -0600, Toshi Kani wrote: > > > > > If your concern is actually a performance bottleneck in acpi_get_name() > > > you found in the code, you should report it to the ACPI CA team. > > > > I have tried my best to get you to understand the problems in bigger > > picture your patch set can exacerbate. Looking to somebody else to fix > > the problems doesn't help. It doesn't look like we can come to an > > agreement here, we just have to agree to disagree. > > I am not asking someone to fix it. I tried my best to explain that > acpi_get_name() does not lead any performance issue when it is called in > the error paths of ACPI drivers, and why we have to call it to obtain an > object path info for error analysis. If you still believe there is a > performance issue in calling acpi_get_name() under this context, please > help us understand where the performance bottleneck is in the code. (I > hope you just concerned it because it has "acpi_" prefix...) I will then > work on the issue with the ACPI CA team. I have measured acpi_pr_<level>() to make sure my statement is correct. Here are the results: Avg. acpi_get_name() 587 ns Avg. printk() 3420 ns Avg. kfree() 238 ns Avg. acpi_get_time()+kfree() 825 ns The results indicate that acpi_pr_<level>() has 20% increase of the time compared to the regular printk(), which is less than 1 us. I believe the results endorse my statement, and may not cause any performance issue to the error paths of the ACPI drivers. -Toshi > Thanks, > -Toshi > > > > > caio, > > -- Shuah > > > -- 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
