From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 8 11:27:48 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BBBD106566C; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 11:27:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (bigknife-pt.tunnel.tserv9.chi1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f10:75::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ED138FC0A; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 11:27:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ralph.baldwin.cx (c-68-39-198-164.hsd1.de.comcast.net [68.39.198.164]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9F63DB945; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 07:27:46 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: Sean Bruno Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 07:25:23 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (FreeBSD/9.0-STABLE; KDE/4.7.4; amd64; ; ) References: <1342730963.2656.5.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com> <201208071730.52899.jhb@freebsd.org> <1344382269.18854.22.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <1344382269.18854.22.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201208080725.24199.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Wed, 08 Aug 2012 07:27:46 -0400 (EDT) Cc: "freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Time to increase MAX_TASKS? X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: ACPI and power management development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 11:27:48 -0000 On Tuesday, August 07, 2012 07:31:09 PM Sean Bruno wrote: > On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 14:30 -0700, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 07, 2012 2:43:17 pm Sean Bruno wrote: > > > On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 09:13 -0700, Sean Bruno wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 05:07 -0700, John Baldwin wrote: > > > > > > I am currently running with a value of 128 and doing a bit of > > > > > > > > > > testing. > > > > > > > > > > I think it should be something like MAX(32, MAXCPU). > > > > > > > > Ah, that sounds WAY more reasonable. I shall test thusly. > > > > > > > > Sean > > > > > > This did *not* work on a dual socket machine with MAXCPU at 64. > > > > Hmm, can you find out how many tasks it wanted? I know part of > > it is a function of the number of CPUs (we queue a task for each > > CPU at one point before tasks are running). > > I extended the log message in acpi_task enqueue() with the current task > count, max task setting and max thread setting when the error occurs. > It appears that we are definitely going above max tasks from my review: > > AcpiOsExecute: failed to enqueue task, consider increasing the > debug.acpi.max_tasks tunable acpi_task_count(64), acpi_max_tasks(64) > max_threads(3) I meant that with the limit jacked up to something that silences the warning (such as 128), what is the max number of tasks queued? -- John Baldwin