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 _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
