From: "Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@intel.com>
To: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com>,
        "shuahkhan@gmail.com" <shuahkhan@gmail.com>
CC: "lenb@kernel.org" <lenb@kernel.org>,
        "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        "bhelgaas@google.com" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        "liuj97@gmail.com" <liuj97@gmail.com>,
        "andi@firstfloor.org" <andi@firstfloor.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 0/6] ACPI: Add _OST support for ACPI hotplug
Thread-Topic: [PATCH v4 0/6] ACPI: Add _OST support for ACPI hotplug
Thread-Index: AQHNOVTy5fYWD8q0CkqdPFMIhKcSwJbZqa0AgAAlfYD//53vEIAIbuwAgAAQS4D//8BOIA==
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 02:56:00 +0000
Message-ID: <94F2FBAB4432B54E8AACC7DFDE6C92E346ACC6F9@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: <1337826324-16802-1-git-send-email-toshi.kani@hp.com>
	 <1337880880.2718.68.camel@lorien2>
	 <1337888931.16730.393.camel@misato.fc.hp.com>
	 <94F2FBAB4432B54E8AACC7DFDE6C92E346ACC639@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com>
	 <1338331496.2722.18.camel@lorien2>
 <1338334995.16730.455.camel@misato.fc.hp.com>
In-Reply-To: <1338334995.16730.455.camel@misato.fc.hp.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2583
Lines: 58

It does not make any difference. Essentially, a get_handle is performed by evaluate_object anyway.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Toshi Kani [mailto:toshi.kani@hp.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 4:43 PM
>To: shuahkhan@gmail.com
>Cc: Moore, Robert; lenb@kernel.org; linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org;
>bhelgaas@google.com; liuj97@gmail.com; andi@firstfloor.org; linux-
>kernel@vger.kernel.org
>Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 0/6] ACPI: Add _OST support for ACPI hotplug
>
>On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 16:44 -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 22:27 +0000, Moore, Robert wrote:
>> > > > 2. Calling acpi_get_handle() on _OST prior to executing the method.
>> > > > This will ensure that this method only gets run if it is present
>> > > under
>> > > > the device in question. Coupled with what is already outlined in #1
>> > > > above, now _OST gets executed only when it is defined under the
>> > > device object.
>> > > > Example case in the existing code, please see
>> > > acpi_processor_ppc_ost()
>> > > > implementation.
>> > >
>> > > Yes, I did look at acpi_processor_ppc_ost() when I implemented the
>> > > function.  I believe calling acpi_get_handle() is redundant since
>> > > acpi_ns_get_node() is called within acpi_evaluate_object() as well.
>> > > acpi_evaluate_object() simply returns with AE_NOT_FOUND when _OST
>> > > method does not exist.
>> > >
>> >
>> > This is correct. If _OST does not exist, AE_NOT_FOUND will be returned
>from evaluate_object.
>>
>> Yes that is correct from the ACPI Spec and implementation point of view.
>> My thinking is that a call to acpi_get_handle() might not penalize the
>> OS as much as acpi_evaluate_object() would on systems that don't
>> actually implement _OST. In other words, acpi_get_handle() might not go
>> as deep as acpi_evaluate_object() would go into the ACPI layer, hence
>> might be a safer measure on platforms that don't actually implement this
>> optional method under all devices included in this patch set.
>>
>
>I do not think we need to worry about it.  The code difference is not
>that much, and this _OST path is limited to ACPI hotplug operations,
>which are infrequent events.  Automatic workload balancing can make
>frequent use of the operations, but is not frequent enough to make any
>difference here.  I think simpler code works fine.
>
>Thanks,
>-Toshi

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/