> -----Original Message----- > From: rjwysocki@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:rjwysocki@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Rafael J. Wysocki > Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 1:51 AM > To: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@xxxxxxx> > Cc: rafael@xxxxxxxxxx; Schmauss, Erik <erik.schmauss@xxxxxxxxx>; Moore, > Robert <robert.moore@xxxxxxxxx>; Wu, Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx>; > devel@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Wysocki, Rafael J > <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] acpi: Avoid soft lockup complaints during boot > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Bart Van Assche > <Bart.VanAssche@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-02-23 at 11:05 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 1:22 AM, Bart Van Assche > <bart.vanassche@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > Avoid that the following is reported during boot with kmemleak > >> > enabled: > >> > >> OK, so why is this fix the right one in your view? > > > > No Linux kernel code should keep running for multiple seconds without > > giving the scheduler a chance to schedule another thread. Hence the > > insertion of the > > cond_resched() call. > > I see. > > > It is very well possible that the fact that this code keeps the CPU > > for itself so long is a bug by itself. However, I'm not familiar > > enough with the ACPI code to figure out whether any alternative > > solutions exist that would be better than the patch I posted. > > OK, we'll look at the code and see how it can be improved upstream. > > Thanks a lot for letting us know about this issue! We would like to take a look at this issue with respect to ACPICA. Please send the dmesg and acpidump for the machine. Thanks, Bob ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{�����ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
