From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 24 18:49:10 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A41EE5EE; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:49:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C089BE14; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:49:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from odyssey.starpoint.kiev.ua (alpha-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.101]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id UAA24592; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:49:08 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <51018223.4030702@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:49:07 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130113 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jung-uk Kim Subject: uma for acpi object cache References: <20130122175629.GA1714@garage.freebsd.pl> <51008661.4060006@FreeBSD.org> <510101B4.4030409@FreeBSD.org> <51017D79.6060202@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <51017D79.6060202@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: ACPI and power management development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:49:10 -0000 on 24/01/2013 20:29 Jung-uk Kim said the following: > On 2013-01-24 04:41:08 -0500, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> on 24/01/2013 02:54 Jung-uk Kim said the following: >> I think that I have a much better patch for all potential ACPI >> object cache problems :-) >> http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/acpi-uma-cache.diff > >> What do you think? > > We have to fix this bug because local cache is always used for > userland applications, e.g., iasl. Could you please clarify what problem/bug is fixed by that patch? I looked hard but couldn't spot any difference besides moving the link pointer from offset 8 to offset 0. > BTW, I tried something like that long ago. In fact, the first attempt > goes all the way back to this patch (warning: it's naive, broken, and > overly complicated): > > http://people.freebsd.org/~jkim/acpica/OsdCache.diff > > I have more up-to-date and correct patch to use UMA but I'm still not > 100% convinced whether we want to do it or not. Hmm, your patch looks a bit more complicated than mine. What is all that extra stuff that you have there? > When utcache.c works, > it works fairly well, actually. :-) Well, my primary motivation for the patch is all the reports about mysterious panics that seem to involve the cache: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.os.freebsd.devel.acpi/7562 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.os.freebsd.devel.acpi/7613 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.os.freebsd.devel.acpi/7077 There were a few more reports with the same theme. I hoped that using uma(9) instead of hand-rolled code would lead to better diagnostic and debugging cabilities. -- Andriy Gapon