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]

Message-Id: <201201210049.35254.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Sat, 21 Jan 2012 00:49:35 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...e.de>, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] serial: 8250: Add a wakeup_capable module param

On Friday, January 20, 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 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?

Well, I was thinking about the failure scenario you mentioned where
executing enable/disable in a tight loop might exhaust system memory
(if I understood it correctly).

Thanks,
Rafael
--
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/