Re: [lm-sensors] Could the k8temp driver be interfering with ACPI?

["David Hubbard" <david.c.hubbard@gmail.com>]

Hi Jean, Rudolf,

> 1* It requires that we modify each driver individually. It's quite a
> shame that we have to update drivers all around the kernel tree with
> specific code to workaround a problem which is originally located in a
> single place (the ACPI subsystem.) That being said this isn't a blocker
> point, if this is the only way, we'll do it. But that's a rather great
> amount of work.

These additions to drivers might help with the kernel virtualization.

> 2* It seems to incur a signficant performance penalty.
> ____request_resource isn't cheap as far as I know. And in the
> absence of conflict, you are even allocating and releasing the resource
> on _each_ I/O operation, which certainly isn't cheap either. Again, it
> is not a blocker point, after all this is a workaround for an improper
> behavior of the acpi subsystem, this performance penalty is the price to
> pay. But there is also a performance penalty for legitimate I/O access,
> which worries me more.

I thought Rudolf's patch allocated the resource in the driver
(w83627ehf) and ACPI contacted the driver when it could not allocate
the resource. Since ACPI never *really* wants to allocate the
resource, is there a fast-path check it could do? This would help
performance.

> 3* What about concurrent accesses from ACPI itself? Unless we have a
> guarantee that only one kernel thread can run AML code at a given
> moment, I can imagine a conflict happening, as your code protects us
> well against ACPI and driver concurrent accesses, but not against two
> concurrent ACPI accesses. But I'm not familiar with ACPI - maybe we do
> have this guarantee? OTOH, if this ever happens, well, it would happen
> even without your code.

All of ACPI uses the same "virtualized" access mechanism, so even if
two threads are poking at the bank select register in a race condition
(that would be awful code, I think) they would see the same virtual
behavior.

> So for now I tend to think that the idea of a global AML lock proposed
> by Pavel Machek and Bodo Eggert would be more efficient. And it
> wouldn't need any driver-specific code, so it would be much more simple
> to implement. The drawback being that we serialize more than we really
> need to (e.g. the hardware monitoring driver will not be allowed to
> access the chip when _any_ AML code is running, not just when the AML
> code accesses the hardware monitoring chip, and if two drivers want to
> check the AML lock, they'll exclude each other as well.) But I wonder
> if this is a problem in practice. Maybe we'll have to make some
> profiling on both solutions and compare.

I like the virtualized driver method (if it wasn't obvious!) but the
global AML lock works also. It will be interesting to see profiling of
both solutions.

David