lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] PM-runtime: Take suppliers into account in __pm_runtime_set_status()
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 00:05, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 4:51 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 14:27, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 19:46, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > If the target device has any suppliers, as reflected by device links
> > > > to them, __pm_runtime_set_status() does not take them into account,
> > > > which is not consistent with the other parts of the PM-runtime
> > > > framework and may lead to programming mistakes.
> > > >
> > > > Modify __pm_runtime_set_status() to take suppliers into account by
> > > > activating them upfront if the new status is RPM_ACTIVE and
> > > > deactivating them on exit if the new status is RPM_SUSPENDED.
> > > >
> > > > If the activation of one of the suppliers fails, the new status
> > > > will be RPM_SUSPENDED and the (remaining) suppliers will be
> > > > deactivated on exit (the child count of the device's parent
> > > > will be dropped too then).
> > > >
> > > > Of course, adding device links locking to __pm_runtime_set_status()
> > > > means that it cannot be run fron interrupt context, so make it use
> > > > spin_lock_irq() and spin_unlock_irq() instead of spin_lock_irqsave()
> > > > and spin_unlock_irqrestore(), respectively.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > >
> > > Rafael, thanks for working on this!
> > >
> > > I am running some tests at my side, but still not achieving the
> > > behavior I expect to. Will let you know when I have more details, but
> > > first some comments below.
> >
> > Alright, this is what I found.
> >
> > When I call pm_runtime_set_suspended(), in the ->probe() error path of
> > my RPM test driver (I am removing the device link afterwards), then my
> > expectation was that this should allow the supplier to become runtime
> > suspended (sooner or later). This isn't the case, as it turns out the
> > runtime PM usage count of the supplier, still remains 1 after the
> > probe failure.
> >
> > My observation is that with $subject patch, the link->rpm_active count
> > is now reaching 1, before it stayed at 2 - so one step forward. :-)
> >
> > However, the reason to why the runtime PM usage count never reaches 0,
> > is because of the call to pm_runtime_get_noresume(supplier) in
> > device_link_rpm_prepare(), which is called from device_link_add().
>
> That was there previously, I've just moved it to device_link_rpm_prepare().

Correct. The problem been there before. Even without using DL_FLAG_RPM_ACTIVE.

>
> But good catch!
>
> > To solve the problem, it seems like we need to call
> > pm_runtime_put(supplier), in case the device link is deleted while the
> > consumer is still probing.
>
> I'd rather change the way pm_runtime_get/put_suppliers() work, so that
> they use the rpm_active refcount, but pm_runtime_put_suppliers() only
> drops it by one - unless it is one already.

That seems like a very reasonable approach!

The mix between calling pm_runtime_get/put*() on the supplier device
directly vs using the path with the rpm_active count, is to me rather
confusing. Using only the latter, would be a nice cleanup anyway, I
think.

>
> Then, when adding a new link with DL_FLAG_RPM_ACTIVE,
> device_link_add() only needs to increment its rpm_active *twice*
> (instead of doing that once as to does now), so it will stay above one
> after the subsequent pm_runtime_put_suppliers() - and if it goes away
> in the meantime, then it will be cleaned up by the removal.

Assuming you will add a check for "consumer->links.status ==
DL_DEV_PROBING" to understand if rpm_active should by be decreased.

Yes, it seems reasonable.

>
> In turn, if a link is created without DL_FLAG_RPM_ACTIVE, its
> rpm_active is one and then pm_runtime_put_suppliers() will just skip
> it.
>
> A patch will follow. :-)

Great, I am here to review it. :-)

Kind regards
Uffe

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-12 09:05    [W:0.047 / U:16.512 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site