Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 15 Nov 2008 10:39:50 -0800 | From | "Justin Mattock" <> | Subject | Re: ACPI: EC: GPE storm detected, transactions will use polling mode |
| |
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 4:06 AM, Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@tuffmail.co.uk> wrote: > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> >> On Saturday, 15 of November 2008, Alan Jenkins wrote: >> >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Alexey Starikovskiy <aystarik@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Andrew Morton wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> (cc linux-acpi) >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:16:17 -0800 "Justin P. Mattock" >>>>> <justinmattock@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> just pulled the latest git today and am now noticing >>>>>> the lovely gpe storm being triggered.(dmesg below); >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Are any other effects observeable? >>>>> >>>>> I assume that 2.6.27 didn't do this. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> It did. Justin even opened a bug -- #11724. >>>> >>> >>> In case anyone else tries to follow that, it's actually #10724 :). >>> >> >> Yes, the "transaction in interrupt context" patch fixed that IIRC and the >> one >> of the patches in the recet ACPI merge broke it again. >> >> Justin, can you see if reverting one or more of the following commits >> helps: >> >> >> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=8517934ef6aaa28d6e055b98df65b31cedbd1372 >> >> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=06cf7d3c7af902939cd1754abcafb2464060cba8 >> >> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=0b7084ac67fb84f0cf2f8bc02d7e0dea8521dd2d >> >> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=a2f93aeadf97e870ff385030633a73e21146815d >> >> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=dd15f8c42af09031e27da5b4d697ce925511f2e1 >> >> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=f8248434e6a11d7cd314281be3b39bbcf82fc243 >> >> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=1cfe62c8010ac56e1bd3827e30386a87cc2f3594 >> >> (please revert in this order)? >> > > Be aware there's a real possibility this was only a cosmetic fix (and > regression). > > I think the original GPE storm avoidance printed that message by default. > Then the "transaction in interrupt context" made the message into a > pr_debug(), - i.e. disabled it by default. And then my "make messages more > useful when GPE storm is detected" re-enabled it. > > IIRC, this flip-flopping is contained within 2.6.28-rc. I.e. I don't think > it will show up as a (cosmetic) regression when jumping straight from 2.6.27 > to 2.6.28. Though I suspect it will shows up between certain versions of > -stable. > > Regards > Alan >
O.K. I think I was wrong about stating this was not caused by the discharging and charging of the battery. to retrace my steps yesterday I pulled, then recompiled, then let the system idle for a few, then once I moved the computer to the other room,(unplugged/plugged the A/C adapter) the light turned orange on the A/C adapter then once the battery became fully charged(green light on A/C adapter) the gpe storm was triggered. Once I saw the gpe storm, I rebooted (under the impression the battery was in a good state), instantly the gpe storm was triggered. leading me to beleive this was something else. So after seeing that and sending a post I used the acpi_osi=Darwin option sat had a beer and worried about it tomorrow. Now when I woke up, and saw the commits from rafael(thanks for the help) I decided to make sure this was reproducible, So removing the acpi_osi option, then let the system idled. To my amazement the gpe storm was not triggered at all. (even unplugging and plugging the A/C multiple times had no effect) After a while thinking what the hell is going on here, I decided to discharge the battery to around 97% or 5 min. and then charge to see if this triggers the gpe storm. Well sure enough it did.(attached is dmesg);
So for now should I go and individually revert the commits; charge, and discharge to locate the culprit, or is this something completely different?
-- Justin P. Mattock [unhandled content-type:application/octet-stream] | |