lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] serial: 8250: Add a wakeup_capable module param
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



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-20 07:15    [W:0.132 / U:2.744 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site