linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] serial: 8250: Add a wakeup

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:08:13 -0800
From:	Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] serial: 8250: Add a wakeup_capable module param

[+cc Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> who I think wrote the wakeup.c code]

Hi Alan, Paul,

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 08:10:36PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:56:03 -0800
>> Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Since serial_core now does not make serial ports wake-up capable by
>> > default, add a parameter to support this feature in the 8250 UART.
>> > This is the only UART where I think this feature is useful.
>>
>> NAK
>>
>> Things should just work for users. Magic parameters is not an
>> improvement. If its a performance problem someone needs to fix the rcu
>> sync overhead or stop using rcu on that path.

OK fair enough, I agree. Every level I move down the source tree
affects more people though.

>
> I must say that I lack context here, even after looking at the patch,
> but the synchronize_rcu_expedited() primitives can be used if the latency
> of synchronize_rcu() is too large.
>

Let me provide a bit of context. The serial_core code seems to be the
only place in the kernel that does this:

		device_init_wakeup(tty_dev, 1);
		device_set_wakeup_enable(tty_dev, 0);

The first call makes the device wakeup capable and enables wakeup, The
second call disabled wakeup.

The code that removes the wakeup source looks like this:

void wakeup_source_remove(struct wakeup_source *ws)
{
	if (WARN_ON(!ws))
		return;

	spin_lock_irq(&events_lock);
	list_del_rcu(&ws->entry);
	spin_unlock_irq(&events_lock);
	synchronize_rcu();
}

The sync is there because we are about to destroy the actual ws
structure (in wakeup_source_destroy()). I wonder if it should be in
wakeup_source_destroy() but that wouldn't help me anyway.

synchronize_rcu_expedited() is a bit faster but not really fast
enough. Anyway surely people will complain if I put this in the wakeup
code - it will affect all wakeup users. It seems to me that the right
solution is to avoid enabling and then immediately disabling wakeup.

I assume we can't and shouldn't change device_init_wakeup() . We could
add a call like device_init_wakeup_disabled() which makes the device
wakeup capable but does not actually enable it. Does that work?

Regards,
Simon

>                                                        Thanx, Paul
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/