Re: Possible bug in ACPI

2006-12-06 Thread Alexey Starikovskiy
Andrew Morton wrote: On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:36:04 +0300 Alexey Starikovskiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Would it be better to replace sys_sched_yield() with cond_resched()? I don't know, because I don't understand the dynamics of the proposed change at all. Again: - How does it relat

Re: Possible bug in ACPI

2006-12-06 Thread Alexey Starikovskiy
Andrew, Full description was sent to you and linux-acpi mail-list. I received copy from mail-list, so if you didn't, you can browse linux-acpi archive of Dec 4. Also patch in #5534 was updated with the full description. If you know, why my mails don't reach you, please advise... Thanks, Al

Re: Possible bug in ACPI

2006-12-06 Thread Andrew Morton
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:36:04 +0300 Alexey Starikovskiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Would it be better to replace sys_sched_yield() with cond_resched()? I don't know, because I don't understand the dynamics of the proposed change at all. Again: - How does it relate to http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/

Re: Possible bug in ACPI

2006-12-06 Thread Alexey Starikovskiy
Andrew, Would it be better to replace sys_sched_yield() with cond_resched()? Thanks in advance, Alex. Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: Andrew Morton wrote: On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 12:30:52 +0300 Alexey Starikovskiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Andrew Morton wrote: On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 12:06:5

Re: Possible bug in ACPI

2006-12-03 Thread Alexey Starikovskiy
Andrew Morton wrote: On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 12:30:52 +0300 Alexey Starikovskiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Andrew Morton wrote: On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 12:06:54 +0300 Alexey Starikovskiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This is a patch reverted by Linus from rc6-git2 because it broke his

Re: Possible bug in ACPI

2006-12-03 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 12:30:52 +0300 Alexey Starikovskiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 12:06:54 +0300 > > Alexey Starikovskiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> This is a patch reverted by Linus from rc6-git2 because it broke his > >> Compaq n620c

Re: Possible bug in ACPI

2006-12-03 Thread Alexey Starikovskiy
Andrew Morton wrote: On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 12:06:54 +0300 Alexey Starikovskiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This is a patch reverted by Linus from rc6-git2 because it broke his Compaq n620c, it refers to #5534 bug. Basically, kacpid deadlocks on some new HP notebooks, and all incoming requests w

Re: Possible bug in ACPI

2006-12-03 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 12:06:54 +0300 Alexey Starikovskiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is a patch reverted by Linus from rc6-git2 because it broke his > Compaq n620c, it refers to #5534 bug. Basically, kacpid deadlocks on > some new HP notebooks, and all incoming requests would be queued until

Re: Possible bug in ACPI

2006-12-03 Thread Alexey Starikovskiy
Andrew, This is a patch reverted by Linus from rc6-git2 because it broke his Compaq n620c, it refers to #5534 bug. Basically, kacpid deadlocks on some new HP notebooks, and all incoming requests would be queued until memory is over if this patch is not applied. On a bright side -- it's not a m

Re: Possible bug in ACPI

2006-12-02 Thread Andrew Morton
We appear to have a fatal memory leak in ACPI. It's a shame this was known about in the -rc series but not fixed then. Dalibor, please raise a full and new report at bugzilla.kernel.org. > On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 21:51:40 +0100 Dalibor Straka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 02:04

Re: Possible bug in ACPI

2006-09-19 Thread Andrew Morton
cc added. On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 23:47:24 +0200 Dalibor Straka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > I am often running out of memory. It looks like an ACPI code is guilty: > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ grep -i acpi /proc/slabinfo > Acpi-Operand3076 3127 64 591 : tunables 120 60