lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Mar]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v10 1/2] scsi: ufs: Enable power management for wlun
    On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 7:37 AM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com> wrote:
    >
    > On 16/03/21 10:35 pm, Asutosh Das (asd) wrote:
    > > On 3/16/2021 12:48 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
    > >> On 16/03/21 12:22 am, Asutosh Das (asd) wrote:
    > >>> On 3/14/2021 1:11 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
    > >>>> On 10/03/21 5:04 am, Asutosh Das (asd) wrote:
    > >>>>> On 3/9/2021 7:56 AM, Asutosh Das (asd) wrote:
    > >>>>>> On 3/8/2021 9:17 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    > >>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 5:21 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
    > >>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 5:17 PM Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
    > >>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 06:54:24PM -0800, Asutosh Das (asd) wrote:
    > >>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>>> Now during my testing I see a weird issue sometimes (1 in 7).
    > >>>>>>>>>> Scenario - bootups
    > >>>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>>> Issue:
    > >>>>>>>>>> The supplier 'ufs_device_wlun 0:0:0:49488' goes into runtime suspend even
    > >>>>>>>>>> when one/more of its consumers are in RPM_ACTIVE state.
    > >>>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>>> *Log:
    > >>>>>>>>>> [ 10.056379][ T206] sd 0:0:0:1: [sdb] Synchronizing SCSI cache
    > >>>>>>>>>> [ 10.062497][ T113] sd 0:0:0:5: [sdf] Synchronizing SCSI cache
    > >>>>>>>>>> [ 10.356600][ T32] sd 0:0:0:7: [sdh] Synchronizing SCSI cache
    > >>>>>>>>>> [ 10.362944][ T174] sd 0:0:0:3: [sdd] Synchronizing SCSI cache
    > >>>>>>>>>> [ 10.696627][ T83] sd 0:0:0:2: [sdc] Synchronizing SCSI cache
    > >>>>>>>>>> [ 10.704562][ T170] sd 0:0:0:6: [sdg] Synchronizing SCSI cache
    > >>>>>>>>>> [ 10.980602][ T5] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Synchronizing SCSI cache
    > >>>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>>> /** Printing all the consumer nodes of supplier **/
    > >>>>>>>>>> [ 10.987327][ T5] ufs_device_wlun 0:0:0:49488: usage-count @ suspend: 0
    > >>>>>>>>>> <-- this is the usage_count
    > >>>>>>>>>> [ 10.994440][ T5] ufs_rpmb_wlun 0:0:0:49476: PM state - 2
    > >>>>>>>>>> [ 11.000402][ T5] scsi 0:0:0:49456: PM state - 2
    > >>>>>>>>>> [ 11.005453][ T5] sd 0:0:0:0: PM state - 2
    > >>>>>>>>>> [ 11.009958][ T5] sd 0:0:0:1: PM state - 2
    > >>>>>>>>>> [ 11.014469][ T5] sd 0:0:0:2: PM state - 2
    > >>>>>>>>>> [ 11.019072][ T5] sd 0:0:0:3: PM state - 2
    > >>>>>>>>>> [ 11.023595][ T5] sd 0:0:0:4: PM state - 0 << RPM_ACTIVE
    > >>>>>>>>>> [ 11.353298][ T5] sd 0:0:0:5: PM state - 2
    > >>>>>>>>>> [ 11.357726][ T5] sd 0:0:0:6: PM state - 2
    > >>>>>>>>>> [ 11.362155][ T5] sd 0:0:0:7: PM state - 2
    > >>>>>>>>>> [ 11.366584][ T5] ufshcd-qcom 1d84000.ufshc: __ufshcd_wl_suspend - 8709
    > >>>>>>>>>> [ 11.374366][ T5] ufs_device_wlun 0:0:0:49488: __ufshcd_wl_suspend -
    > >>>>>>>>>> (0) has rpm_active flags
    > >>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>> Do you mean that rpm_active of the link between the consumer and the
    > >>>>>>>> supplier is greater than 0 at this point and the consumer is
    > >>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>> I mean is rpm_active of the link greater than 1 (because 1 means "no
    > >>>>>>> active references to the supplier")?
    > >>>>>> Hi Rafael:
    > >>>>>> No - it is not greater than 1.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> I'm trying to understand what's going on in it; will update when I've something.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>> RPM_ACTIVE, but the supplier suspends successfully nevertheless?
    > >>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>>> [ 11.383376][ T5] ufs_device_wlun 0:0:0:49488:
    > >>>>>>>>>> ufshcd_wl_runtime_suspend <-- Supplier suspends fine.
    > >>>>>>>>>> [ 12.977318][ T174] sd 0:0:0:4: [sde] Synchronizing SCSI cache
    > >>>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>>> And the the suspend of sde is stuck now:
    > >>>>>>>>>> schedule+0x9c/0xe0
    > >>>>>>>>>> schedule_timeout+0x40/0x128
    > >>>>>>>>>> io_schedule_timeout+0x44/0x68
    > >>>>>>>>>> wait_for_common_io+0x7c/0x100
    > >>>>>>>>>> wait_for_completion_io+0x14/0x20
    > >>>>>>>>>> blk_execute_rq+0x90/0xcc
    > >>>>>>>>>> __scsi_execute+0x104/0x1c4
    > >>>>>>>>>> sd_sync_cache+0xf8/0x2a0
    > >>>>>>>>>> sd_suspend_common+0x74/0x11c
    > >>>>>>>>>> sd_suspend_runtime+0x14/0x20
    > >>>>>>>>>> scsi_runtime_suspend+0x64/0x94
    > >>>>>>>>>> __rpm_callback+0x80/0x2a4
    > >>>>>>>>>> rpm_suspend+0x308/0x614
    > >>>>>>>>>> pm_runtime_work+0x98/0xa8
    > >>>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>>> I added 'DL_FLAG_RPM_ACTIVE' while creating links.
    > >>>>>>>>>> if (hba->sdev_ufs_device) {
    > >>>>>>>>>> link = device_link_add(&sdev->sdev_gendev,
    > >>>>>>>>>> &hba->sdev_ufs_device->sdev_gendev,
    > >>>>>>>>>> DL_FLAG_PM_RUNTIME|DL_FLAG_RPM_ACTIVE);
    > >>>>>>>>>> I didn't expect this to resolve the issue anyway and it didn't.
    > >>>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>>> Another interesting point here is when I resume any of the above suspended
    > >>>>>>>>>> consumers, it all goes back to normal, which is kind of expected. I tried
    > >>>>>>>>>> resuming the consumer and the supplier is resumed and the supplier is
    > >>>>>>>>>> suspended when all the consumers are suspended.
    > >>>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>>> Any pointers on this issue please?
    > >>>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>>> @Bart/@Alan - Do you've any pointers please?
    > >>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>> It's very noticeable that although you seem to have isolated a bug in
    > >>>>>>>>> the power management subsystem (supplier goes into runtime suspend
    > >>>>>>>>> even when one of its consumers is still active), you did not CC the
    > >>>>>>>>> power management maintainer or mailing list.
    > >>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>> I have added the appropriate CC's.
    > >>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>> Thanks Alan!
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Hello
    > >>>>> I & Can (thanks CanG) debugged this further:
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Looks like this issue can occur if the sd probe is asynchronous.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Essentially, the sd_probe() is done asynchronously and driver_probe_device() invokes pm_runtime_get_suppliers() before invoking sd_probe().
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> But scsi_probe_and_add_lun() runs in a separate context.
    > >>>>> So the scsi_autopm_put_device() invoked from scsi_scan_host() context reduces the link->rpm_active to 1. And sd_probe() invokes scsi_autopm_put_device() and starts a timer. And then driver_probe_device() invoked from __device_attach_async_helper context reduces the link->rpm_active to 1 thus enabling the supplier to suspend before the consumer suspends.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> So if:
    > >>>>> Context T1:
    > >>>>> [1] scsi_probe_and_add_lun()
    > >>>>> [2] |- scsi_autopm_put_device() - reduce the link->rpm_active to 1
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Context T2:
    > >>>>> __device_attach_async_helper()
    > >>>>> |- driver_probe_device()
    > >>>>> |- sd_probe()
    > >>>>> In between [1] and [2] say, driver_probe_device() -> sd_probe() is invoked in a separate context from __device_attach_async_helper().
    > >>>>> The driver_probe_device() -> pm_runtime_get_suppliers() but [2] would reduce link->rpm_active to 1.
    > >>>>> Then sd_probe() would invoke rpm_resume() and proceed as is.
    > >>>>> When sd_probe() invokes scsi_autopm_put_device() it'd start a timer, dev->power.timer_autosuspends = 1.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Now then, pm_runtime_put_suppliers() is invoked from driver_probe_device() and that makes the link->rpm_active = 1.
    > >>>>> But by now, the corresponding 'sd dev' (consumer) usage_count = 0, state = RPM_ACTIVE and link->rpm_active = 1.
    > >>>>> At this point of time, all other 'sd dev' (consumers) _may_ be suspended or active but would have the link->rpm_active = 1.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Is this with DL_FLAG_RPM_ACTIVE? In that case, wouldn't active
    > >>>> consumers have link->rpm_active = 2 and also have incremented
    > >>>> the supplier's usage_count?
    > >
    > > Yes this is with DL_FLAG_RPM_ACTIVE.
    > >
    > > Please let me share a log here:
    > > BEF means - Before, AFT means After.
    > >
    > > [ 6.843445][ T7] scsi 0:0:0:4: [UFSDBG]: ufshcd_setup_links:4779: supp: usage_cnt: 3 Link - 0:0:0:49488 link-rpm_active: 2 avail_luns: 5
    > > [ 6.892545][ T7] scsi 0:0:0:4: pm_runtime_get_suppliers: (0:0:0:49488): supp: usage_count: 5 rpm_active: 4
    > >
    > > In the above log, T7 is the context in which this scsi device is being added - scsi_sysfs_add_sdev()
    > >
    > > [ 6.931846][ T7] ufs_rpmb_wlun 0:0:0:4: [UFSDBG]: ufshcd_rpmb_probe:9692: invoked
    > > [ 6.941246][ T7] scsi 0:0:0:4: pm_runtime_put_suppliers: rpm_active: 4
    > >
    > > [ 6.941246][ T7] scsi 0:0:0:4: pm_runtime_put_suppliers: (0:0:0:49488) [BEF] usage_count: 5
    > > [ 6.941247][ T7] scsi 0:0:0:4: pm_runtime_put_suppliers: (0:0:0:49488) [AFT] usage_count: 4 rpm_active: 3
    > >
    > > [ 6.941267][ T7] scsi 0:0:0:4: rpm_put_suppliers: [BEF] Supp (0:0:0:49488) usage_count: 4 rpm_active: 3
    > >
    > > ------ T196 Context comes in while T7 is running ----------
    > > [ 6.941466][ T196] scsi 0:0:0:4: pm_runtime_get_suppliers: (0:0:0:49488): supp: usage_count: 5 rpm_active: 4
    > > --------------------------------------------------------------
    > >
    > > [ 7.788397][ T7] scsi 0:0:0:4: rpm_put_suppliers: [AFT] Supp (0:0:0:49488) usage_count: 2 rpm_active: 1
    >
    >
    >
    > >
    > > --
    > >
    > > T196 is the context in which sd_probe() is invoked for this scsi device.
    > >
    > > [ 7.974410][ T196] sd 0:0:0:4: [sde] Attached SCSI disk
    > > [ 7.984188][ T196] sd 0:0:0:4: pm_runtime_put_suppliers: rpm_active: 2
    > > [ 7.998424][ T196] sd 0:0:0:4: pm_runtime_put_suppliers: (0:0:0:49488) [BEF] usage_count: 4
    > > [ 8.017320][ T196] sd 0:0:0:4: pm_runtime_put_suppliers: (0:0:0:49488) [AFT] usage_count: 1 rpm_active: 1
    > >
    > > The reference to the link is released after sd_probe() is completed.
    > > At this point, the rpm_active should be 2. And the rpm_active should become 1 when sd 0:0:0:4 actually suspends. But at the end of sd_probe() the suspend is only scheduled. However the supplier is now free to suspend.
    > >
    > > In this log, the usage_count of supplier becomes 0 here:
    > > [ 11.963885][ T117] sd 0:0:0:7: rpm_put_suppliers: [BEF] Supp (0:0:0:49488) usage_count: 1 rpm_active: 2
    > > [ 11.973821][ T117] sd 0:0:0:7: rpm_put_suppliers: [AFT] Supp (0:0:0:49488) usage_count: 0 rpm_active: 1
    > >
    > > However, the consumer sd 0:0:0:4 is still active but has released the reference to the supplier:
    >
    > If that is the case, then it is an error in PM not UFS.
    >
    > A second look at the code around rpm_put_suppliers() does look
    > potentially racy, since there does not appear to be anything
    > stopping the runtime_status changing between
    > spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock) and device_links_read_lock().
    >
    > Rafael, can you comment?

    Indeed, if the device is suspending, changing its PM-runtime status to
    RPM_SUSPENDED and dropping its power.lock allows a concurrent
    rpm_resume() to run and resume the device before the suppliers can be
    suspended.

    That's incorrect and has been introduced by commit 44cc89f76464 ("PM:
    runtime: Update device status before letting suppliers suspend").

    It is probably better to revert that commit and address the original
    issue in a different way.

    > /*
    > * If the device is suspending and the callback has returned success,
    > * drop the usage counters of the suppliers that have been reference
    > * counted on its resume.
    > *
    > * Do that if the resume fails too.
    > */
    > put = dev->power.runtime_status == RPM_SUSPENDING && !retval;
    > if (put)
    > __update_runtime_status(dev, RPM_SUSPENDED);
    > else
    > put = get && retval;
    >
    > if (put) {
    > spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
    >
    > idx = device_links_read_lock();
    >
    > fail:
    > rpm_put_suppliers(dev);
    >
    > device_links_read_unlock(idx);
    >
    > spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
    > }
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > [ 12.002792][ T117] scsi 0:0:0:49456: rpm_status - 2
    > > [ 12.002806][ T117] sd 0:0:0:0: rpm_status - 2
    > > [ 12.002834][ T117] sd 0:0:0:1: rpm_status - 2
    > > [ 12.017730][ T117] sd 0:0:0:2: rpm_status - 2
    > > [ 12.041317][ T117] sd 0:0:0:3: rpm_status - 2
    > > [ 12.045953][ T117] sd 0:0:0:4: rpm_status - 0
    > >
    > > And sd 0:0:0:4 tries to suspend here:
    > > [ 15.465914][ T117] sd 0:0:0:4: [sde] Synchronizing SCSI cache
    > >
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Another outstanding issue that comes to mind, is to ensure
    > >>>> hba->sdev_ufs_device does not runtime suspend before it is probed.
    > >>>> I suggest changing ufshcd_slave_configure() so it does not set
    > >>>> sdev->rpm_autosuspend for hba->sdev_ufs_device, and instead do
    > >>>> pm_runtime_allow / pm_runtime_forbid() in ufshcd_wl_probe() /
    > >>>> ufshcd_wl_remove() respectively.
    > >>>>
    > > If pm_runtime_allow() is invoked from ufshcd_wl_probe() it'd invoke runtime_suspend on hba->sdev_ufs_device before exiting scsi_sysfs_add_sdev(). So I think pm_runtime_allow() should be invoked in ufshcd_scsi_add_wlus().
    > >
    > >>>> However we still want to stop hba->sdev_ufs_device runtime
    > >>>> suspending while consumers are being added. With that in mind,
    > >>>> I would expect pm_runtime_get_noresume(&hba->sdev_ufs_device->sdev_gendev)
    > >>>> in ufshcd_scsi_add_wlus() to come *before*
    > >>>> ufshcd_blk_pm_runtime_init(hba->sdev_ufs_device). In fact, it would
    > >>>> be more logical to make it, pm_runtime_get_sync() since we require
    > >>>> hba->sdev_ufs_device to be active at that point.
    > >>>>
    > > Correct, scsi_autopm_get_device(hba->sdev_ufs_device) should be invoked before ufshcd_blk_pm_runtime_init(hba->sdev_ufs_device).
    > > Now a corresponding scsi_autopm_put_device(hba->sdev_ufs_device) is invoked after the consumers are added in ufshcd_setup_links().
    > > Even then I think this issue would still pop up.
    > >
    > >>>>
    > >>>
    > >>> Hi Adrian,
    > >>> I think the v11 that I pushed can handle this.
    > >>> runtime-suspend is forbidden at probe and is re-enabled after probe is done. Please take a look and let me know if I'm missing something.
    > >>
    > >> If the PM APIs are being used correctly, the usage and active
    > >> counts should never be wrong. If they were, then that would
    > >> be an issue for the PM framework.
    > >> It is more likely that I'm using it incorrectly :).
    > >
    > >> However, it is hard to tell what the issues are until all the
    > >> UFS driver changes have been completed, such as the ones I
    > >> suggested above above.
    > >>
    > > Ok, understood.
    > >
    > >> v11 could be hiding issues rather than fixing them.
    > >>
    > > Based on the logs, in v11, I tried to forbid any runtime-suspend until sd_probe() is done.
    > > I could be misunderstanding the whole thing though.
    > >
    > > Having said that, I will make the changes as per your suggestions and push a v12. I will test with v12 as well and see if this issue is seen.
    > >
    > >>>
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Since the supplier has 0 auto-suspend delay, it now suspends!
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Context [T1]
    > >>>>> Call trace:
    > >>>>> dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1d4
    > >>>>> show_stack+0x18/0x24
    > >>>>> dump_stack+0xc4/0x144
    > >>>>> __pm_runtime_idle+0xb4/0x184
    > >>>>> scsi_autopm_put_device+0x18/0x24
    > >>>>> scsi_sysfs_add_sdev+0x26c/0x278
    > >>>>> scsi_probe_and_add_lun+0xbac/0xd48
    > >>>>> __scsi_scan_target+0x38c/0x510
    > >>>>> scsi_scan_host_selected+0x14c/0x1e4
    > >>>>> scsi_scan_host+0x1e0/0x228
    > >>>>> ufshcd_async_scan+0x39c/0x408
    > >>>>> async_run_entry_fn+0x48/0x128
    > >>>>> process_one_work+0x1f0/0x470
    > >>>>> worker_thread+0x26c/0x4c8
    > >>>>> kthread+0x13c/0x320
    > >>>>> ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Context [T2]
    > >>>>> Call trace:
    > >>>>> dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1d4
    > >>>>> show_stack+0x18/0x24
    > >>>>> dump_stack+0xc4/0x144
    > >>>>> rpm_get_suppliers+0x48/0x1ac
    > >>>>> __rpm_callback+0x58/0x12c
    > >>>>> rpm_resume+0x3a4/0x618
    > >>>>> __pm_runtime_resume+0x50/0x80
    > >>>>> scsi_autopm_get_device+0x20/0x54
    > >>>>> sd_probe+0x40/0x3d0
    > >>>>> really_probe+0x1bc/0x4a0
    > >>>>> driver_probe_device+0x84/0xf0
    > >>>>> __device_attach_driver+0x114/0x138
    > >>>>> bus_for_each_drv+0x84/0xd0
    > >>>>> __device_attach_async_helper+0x7c/0xf0
    > >>>>> async_run_entry_fn+0x48/0x128
    > >>>>> process_one_work+0x1f0/0x470
    > >>>>> worker_thread+0x26c/0x4c8
    > >>>>> kthread+0x13c/0x320
    > >>>>> ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Below prints show how link->rpm_active becomes 1 for sd 0:0:0:4
    > >>>>> [ 7.574654][ T212] Call trace:
    > >>>>> [ 7.574657][ T212] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1d4
    > >>>>> [ 7.574661][ T212] show_stack+0x18/0x24
    > >>>>> [ 7.574665][ T212] dump_stack+0xc4/0x144
    > >>>>> [ 7.574668][ T212] __pm_runtime_idle+0xb4/0x184
    > >>>>> [ 7.574671][ T212] scsi_autopm_put_device+0x18/0x24
    > >>>>> [ 7.574675][ T212] sd_probe+0x314/0x3d0
    > >>>>> [ 7.574677][ T212] really_probe+0x1bc/0x4a0
    > >>>>> [ 7.574680][ T212] driver_probe_device+0x84/0xf0
    > >>>>> [ 7.574683][ T212] __device_attach_driver+0x114/0x138
    > >>>>> [ 7.574686][ T212] bus_for_each_drv+0x84/0xd0
    > >>>>> [ 7.574689][ T212] __device_attach_async_helper+0x7c/0xf0
    > >>>>> [ 7.574692][ T212] async_run_entry_fn+0x48/0x128
    > >>>>> [ 7.574695][ T212] process_one_work+0x1f0/0x470
    > >>>>> [ 7.574698][ T212] worker_thread+0x26c/0x4c8
    > >>>>> [ 7.574700][ T212] kthread+0x13c/0x320
    > >>>>> [ 7.574703][ T212] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
    > >>>>> [ 7.574706][ T212] sd 0:0:0:4: scsi_runtime_idle
    > >>>>> [ 7.574712][ T212] sd 0:0:0:4: __pm_runtime_idle: aft: [UFSDBG]: pwr.timer_autosuspends: 1 pwr.request_pending: 0 retval: -16 pwr.request: 0 usage_count: 0 rpm_status: 0 link-rpm_active:2
    > >>>>> [ 7.574715][ T212] sd 0:0:0:4: sd_probe: [UFSDBG]: Exit
    > >>>>> [ 7.574738][ T212] sd 0:0:0:4: __pm_runtime_idle: b4: [UFSDBG]: pwr.request: 0 usage_count: 0 rpm_status: 0 link-rpm_active:2
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> [ 7.574752][ T212] Workqueue: events_unbound async_run_entry_fn
    > >>>>> [ 7.574754][ T212] Call trace:
    > >>>>> [ 7.574758][ T212] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1d4
    > >>>>> [ 7.574761][ T212] show_stack+0x18/0x24
    > >>>>> [ 7.574765][ T212] dump_stack+0xc4/0x144
    > >>>>> [ 7.574767][ T212] __pm_runtime_idle+0xb4/0x184
    > >>>>> [ 7.574770][ T212] driver_probe_device+0x94/0xf0
    > >>>>> [ 7.574773][ T212] __device_attach_driver+0x114/0x138
    > >>>>> [ 7.574775][ T212] bus_for_each_drv+0x84/0xd0
    > >>>>> [ 7.574778][ T212] __device_attach_async_helper+0x7c/0xf0
    > >>>>> [ 7.574781][ T212] async_run_entry_fn+0x48/0x128
    > >>>>> [ 7.574783][ T212] process_one_work+0x1f0/0x470
    > >>>>> [ 7.574786][ T212] worker_thread+0x26c/0x4c8
    > >>>>> [ 7.574788][ T212] kthread+0x13c/0x320
    > >>>>> [ 7.574791][ T212] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
    > >>>>> [ 7.574848][ T80] sd 0:0:0:4: scsi_runtime_idle
    > >>>>> [ 7.574858][ T212] sd 0:0:0:4: __pm_runtime_idle: aft: [UFSDBG]: pwr.timer_autosuspends: 1 pwr.request_pending: 0 retval: 0 pwr.request: 0 usage_count: 0 rpm_status: 0 link-rpm_active:2
    > >>>>> [ 7.574863][ T212] sd 0:0:0:4: pm_runtime_put_suppliers: [UFSDBG]: rpm_status: 0 link-rpm_active:1
    > >>>>> [ 7.574866][ T212] sd 0:0:0:4: async probe completed
    > >>>>> [ 7.574870][ T212] sd 0:0:0:4: __pm_runtime_idle: b4: [UFSDBG]: pwr.request: 0 usage_count: 0 rpm_status: 0 link-rpm_active:1
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> So, from the above it looks like when async probe is enabled this is a possibility.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> I don't see a way around this. Please let me know if you (@Alan/@Bart/@Adrian) have any thoughts on this.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Thanks,
    > >>>>> -asd
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >
    > >
    > > --
    > > The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
    > > Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
    >

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2021-03-18 15:02    [W:4.750 / U:0.016 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site