Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:08:28 +0200 From: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> To: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r184558 - head/sys/dev/acpica/Osd Message-ID: <490F21FC.1020508@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200811031050.48765.jkim@FreeBSD.org> References: <200811021250.mA2CoGs1038957@svn.freebsd.org> <200811031050.48765.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jung-uk Kim wrote: > On Sunday 02 November 2008 07:50 am, Alexander Motin wrote: >> Author: mav >> Date: Sun Nov 2 12:50:16 2008 >> New Revision: 184558 >> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/184558 >> >> Log: >> As soon as we have several threads per process now, it is not >> correct to use process ID as ACPI thread ID. Concurrent requests >> with equal thread IDs broke ACPI mutexes operation causing >> unpredictable errors including AE_AML_MUTEX_NOT_ACQUIRED that I >> have seen. >> >> Use kernel thread ID instead of process ID for ACPI thread. > > Sorry but this patch is incorrect, i.e., td_tid is not unique. You > have to use curthread or (p_pid, td_tid) pair. Unfortunately, even > if you correct this problem, you also have to correct ACPI_THREAD_ID > definition, which is in the vendor code. That's why it wasn't done > yet and it is more complicated than you think, i.e., ACPI-CA assumes > sizeof(ACPI_THREAD_ID) == sizeof(int), etc. Please see the related > ACPI-CA bugs: I'm also sorry, but that is what I see: typedef __int32_t __lwpid_t; /* Thread ID (a.k.a. LWP) */ ... td->td_tid = alloc_unr(tid_unrhdr); ... tid_unrhdr = new_unrhdr(PID_MAX + 2, INT_MAX, &tid_lock); So what have I missed, where is the problem? Why td_tid is not unique and where is the size problem? -- Alexander Motin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?490F21FC.1020508>