From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 7 23:31:54 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 1AA3B106566B; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 23:31:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from seanbru@yahoo-inc.com) Received: from mrout1-b.corp.bf1.yahoo.com (mrout1-b.corp.bf1.yahoo.com [98.139.253.104]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B68C58FC0A; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 23:31:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (rideseveral.corp.yahoo.com [10.73.160.231]) by mrout1-b.corp.bf1.yahoo.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/y.out) with ESMTP id q77NV9sT034479; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 16:31:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=yahoo-inc.com; s=cobra; t=1344382270; bh=ZIoE+w5alfZxVYJ9sRhQfEtqFfqK/OqLejlQMR4lkH0=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-ID:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=XOszc/e895NkCQndHRBJO3hkZXQS25IxQ0h3hq/DKpHZFJZQ7Zt60gnxVqD6adn3P xe3v6mX7mfuOChhJ5P8hQBrhL+K07EiB+W5R++5QMqHswIYkU6odxxkk4o5XUS/ZXe PcucydLinJY8QKPMW/PuDTIlAkJ7KgKwaxDcLdNQ= From: Sean Bruno To: John Baldwin In-Reply-To: <201208071730.52899.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <1342730963.2656.5.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com> <1343751187.2957.4.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com> <1344364997.18854.9.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com> <201208071730.52899.jhb@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 16:31:09 -0700 Message-ID: <1344382269.18854.22.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Milter-Version: master.31+4-gbc07cd5+ X-CLX-ID: 382269003 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: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 23:31:54 -0000 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 don't see any evidence that the log message in acpi_taskq_init() is firing at any point. "if (acpi_task_count > 0) ..." Sean