Message-Id: <200802292257.52480.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Fri, 29 Feb 2008 22:57:51 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Fundamental flaw in system suspend, exposed by freezer removal

On Friday, 29 of February 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > > > Suppose we add a mutex to dev_pm_info, say pm_mtx, and require it to be:
> > > > (1) taken by suspend_device(dev) (at the beginning)
> > > > (2) released by resume_device(dev) (at the end)
> > > > (3) taken (and released) by device_pm_add() if dev is the parent of the device
> > > >     being added.
> > > > 
> > > > In that case, device_pm_add() will block on attepmpts to register devices whose
> > > > parents are suspended (or suspending) and we're done.  At least so it would
> > > > seem.
> > > 
> > > No; this would repeat the same mistake we were struggling with last
> > > week.
> > 
> > Not exactly, because in that case we blocked all attempts to register devices,
> > while I think we can only block those regarding the children of a suspending
> > (or suspended) device.
> 
> It's the "suspending" case that causes trouble.  Go back and look at 
> the race I diagrammed in
> 
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2008-February/016763.html

Yes, I remember this picture.

> > > Blocking registration attempts (especially if we start _before_ 
> > > calling the device's suspend method or end _after_ calling the resume
> > > method) will lead to deadlocks while suspending or resuming.
> > 
> > I'm not really convinced that it'll happen.
> 
> It _did_ happen.  Precisely this race occurred in Bug #10030 (the SD
> card insertion/removal), although there the window was bigger because
> we blocked registrations starting from the start of the system sleep
> instead of from when the parent's suspend method was called.

I'm still not sure if this particular race would happen if only the registering
of children of already suspended partents were blocked.

> >  If we make the rule that registering children from the device's
> >  own ->suspend() method is forbidden (I don't really see why it should be
> >  allowed), something like this might work (it seems to me):
> 
> It's not that the suspend method itself will want to register children.  
> The problem is that the method has to wait for other threads that may 
> already have started to register a child.  If those other threads are 
> blocked then suspend will deadlock.
> 
> > @@ -427,6 +433,13 @@ static int dpm_suspend(pm_message_t stat
> >  		struct device *dev = to_device(entry);
> >  
> >  		mutex_unlock(&dpm_list_mtx);
> > +		mutex_lock(&dev->power.lock);
> > +		mutex_lock(&dpm_list_mtx);
> > +		if (dev != to_device(dpm_active.prev)) {
> > +			mutex_unlock(&dev->power.lock);
> > +			continue;
> > +		}
> > +		mutex_unlock(&dpm_list_mtx);
> >  		error = suspend_device(dev, state);
> >  		mutex_lock(&dpm_list_mtx);
> >  		if (error) {
> 
> This looks pretty awkward.  Won't it cause lockdep to complain about
> recursive locking of dev->power.lock?

Why would it?  It's not taken recursively at any place.

In fact we can't take dev->power.lock under dpm_list_mtx, because that would
deadlock (we have to be able to take dpm_list_mtx to complete the suspending
of devices).  For this reason, dpm_list_mtx is taken under dev->power.lock.
However, we don't know which lock to acquire (dev is unknown) until we get the
next device to suspend.  Thus, I first get the device (under dpm_list_mtx) and
release dpm_list_mtx.  Next, I take dev->power.lock and dpm_list_mtx under it
and check if the selected device is still the last on the list.  If it's not,
something has been registered in the meantime and it's better to get the new
device to suspend first (this seems to be cleaner than resuming an already
suspended device).

I could release dev->power.lock as soon as suspend_device(dev, state) has run,
but that could result in new devices being added to dpm_active in a wrong
order, so it's better not to release it until resume_device(dev).  However,
it's probably is safe to release it right prior to running resume_device(dev)
(after we've added dev back to dpm_active), because in that case the ordering
will be fine.

> > > If the blocking starts after the suspend method returns then it will be 
> > > safer.  But what's the point?  If a registration attempt is made at 
> > > that stage, it means there's a bug in the driver.  So failing the 
> > > registration seems like a reasonable thing to do.
> > 
> > That doesn't buy us anything if drivers don't check whether the registration
> > succeeded.  And they don't.
> 
> It buys us one thing: The system will continue to limp along instead of 
> locking up.

It may oops, though, if a driver attempts to use a device that it failed to
register, but didn't check.
 
> If drivers don't check whether registration succeeded...  What can I 
> say?  It's another bug.
> 
> > > One issue: This rule doesn't allow suspend_late or resume_early methods
> > > to register any new devices.
> > 
> > Not exactly.  Just the children of suspended devices, which makes a difference
> > IMO. :-)
> 
> During suspend_late and resume_early _every_ device is suspended, 
> including the fictitious "device-tree-root" device.  Hence _every_ 
> registration is for a child of a suspended device.
> 
> Besides, you don't want to allow new devices to be registered during 
> suspend_late, do you?  They wouldn't get suspended before the system 
> went to sleep.

No, I don't, but that's really along the lines of the last patch.

> > > Will that cause problems with the CPU hotplug or ACPI subsystems?  ACPI in
> > > particular may need to freeze the kacpi_notify workqueue -- in fact, that
> > > might solve the problem in Bugzilla #9874.
> > 
> > Well, my impression is that we do this thing to prepare for removing the
> > freezer in the future, so I'd rather solve issues in some other ways than just
> > by freezing threads that get in the way. ;-)
> 
> Right now that may be the easiest solution.  In fact, it may still be 
> the easiest solution even after we stop freezing user threads.

Well, people want to remove the freezing of tasks altogether from the suspend
code path.  Do you think it's not doable in the long run?

> > > Remember too that the target state is set before any devices are
> > > suspended.  Hence, after the state is set there may still be runtime
> > > resumes taking place.  Those _must_ not fail, which means that this
> > > resume ought to work also.
> > 
> > They may be handled in a different way, not by ->resume().
> 
> I'm not sure I understand.  Sure, autoresume may not involve calling 
> the driver's resume method.  But it does involve actually setting the 
> device back to full power, so what's the difference?

In fact, that's the matter of how we are going to handle the runtime PM vs
the system-wide suspend.

> > > > > +				resume_device(dev);
> > > > > +				mutex_lock(&dpm_list_mtx);
> > > > > +				if (dev->power.sleeping != PM_GONE)
> > > > > +					dev->power.sleeping = PM_AWAKE;
> > > > > +			} else {
> > > 
> > > > Well, I wish it could be simpler ...
> > > 
> > > Me too.  But until the API is changed, this seems to be the best we can 
> > > do.  It's not quite as bad as it looks, since a fair amount of the new 
> > > code is just for reporting on and recovering from bugs in drivers.
> > 
> > Still, it doesn't look very nice ...
> 
> Are you still considering adding separate methods for suspend and 
> hibernate (maybe also for freeze and prethaw)?

Yes, I am.  In fact I have a patch for that I'm going to send in a while. :-)

> Perhaps the "prevent_new_children" and "allow_new_children" methods could be
> added then.  This would allow some of this complication to go away.

I wonder how that would be different from using dev->power.lock for blocking
the registration of new children.  The only practical difference I see is that
the driver will have to block the registrations, this way or another, instead
of the core.

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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists