Re: [PATCH 3/3] serial: 8250: Add a wakeup_capable module param

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 01:03:34AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, January 19, 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 01:02:58AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 18, 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 02:15:59PM -0800, Simon Glass wrote:
> [...] 
> > > Yes, you can, but then I'd say it's not necessary for user space to
> > > be able to carry that out in a tight loop.  So, it seems, alternatively,
> > > we could make that loop a bit less tight, e.g. by adding an arbitrary
> > > sleep to the user space interface for the "disable" case.
> > 
> > Good point, that would work just as well and be simpler.
> 
> Thanks for the confirmation! :-)
> 
> By the way, I wonder, would it help to add synchronize_rcu() to
> wakeup_source_add() too?  Then, even if device_wakeup_enable() and
> device_wakeup_disable() are executed in a tight loop for the same
> device, the list_add/list_del operations will always happen in
> different RCU cycles (or at least it seems so).

I cannot immediately see how adding a synchronize_rcu() to
wakeup_source_add() would help anything.  You only need to wait for a
grace period on removal, not (normally) on addition.  The single grace
period during removal will catch up all other asynchronous RCU grace
period requests on that CPU.

Or am I missing your point?

							Thanx, Paul