From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751583Ab2ATGMu (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jan 2012 01:12:50 -0500 Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.152]:59357 "EHLO e34.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751311Ab2ATGMs (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jan 2012 01:12:48 -0500 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:12:14 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Simon Glass , Alan Cox , LKML , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-serial@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] serial: 8250: Add a wakeup_capable module param Message-ID: <20120120061214.GA2551@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <1326826563-32215-1-git-send-email-sjg@chromium.org> <201201190102.58788.rjw@sisk.pl> <20120119013731.GK2431@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <201201200103.34296.rjw@sisk.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201201200103.34296.rjw@sisk.pl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12012006-1780-0000-0000-0000027B50A9 X-IBM-ISS-SpamDetectors: X-IBM-ISS-DetailInfo: BY=3.00000245; HX=3.00000181; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000001; SC=3.00000001; SDB=6.00106487; UDB=6.00026788; UTC=2012-01-20 06:12:45 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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