linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM: Introduce core framework for run-time PM of I/O devices (rev. 8)

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: <aec7e5c30907072140y7dd3b4c7ge7cb0b750bef3226@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 8 Jul 2009 13:40:06 +0900
From:	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM: Introduce core framework for run-time PM of I/O 
	devices (rev. 8)

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Alan Stern<stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
>> > I've now jumped from v5 to v8 and I feel that the code is getting
>> > cleaner and cleaner. Very nice.
>>
>> That's mostly thanks to Alan.
>
> I haven't had time yet to look through the new code.  Things have been
> very busy.
>
>> > Issue 1:
>> > ------------
>> > Device drivers which do not perform any hardware access in probe()
>> > work fine. During software setup in probe() the runtime pm code is
>> > initialized with the following:
>> >
>> > +   pm_suspend_ignore_children(&dev->dev, true);
>> > +   pm_runtime_set_suspended(&dev->dev);
>> > +   pm_runtime_enable(&dev->dev);
>> >
>> > Before accessing hardware I perform:
>> > +   pm_runtime_resume(pd->dev);
>> >
>> > When done with the hardware I do:
>> > +   pm_runtime_suspend(pd->dev);
>> >
>> > Not so complicated. Am I supposed to initialize something else as well?
>
> No, that's all you need.

Ok, thank you!

>> > All good with the code above, but there seem to be some issue with how
>> > usage_count is counted up and down and when runtime_disabled is set:
>> >
>> > 1. pm_runtime_init(): usage_count = 1, runtime_disabled = true
>> > 2. driver_probe_device(): pm_runtime_get_sync()
>> > 3. pm_runtime_get_sync(): usage_count = 2
>> > 4. device driver probe(): pm_runtime_enable()
>> > 5. pm_runtime_enable(): usage_count = 1
>> > 6. driver_probe_device(): pm_runtime_put()
>> > 7. pm_runtime_put(): usage_count = 0
>> >
>> > I expect runtime_disabled = false in 7.
>
> Wasn't it?  It should have been set to false in step 4 and remained
> that way.

I may misunderstand, but in v8 won't the pm_runtime_enable() function
do a atomic_dec_test() where the counter value will go from 2 to 1 in
the case above? This would mean that atomic_dec_test() returns false
so runtime_disabled is never modified.

Thanks for your feedback,

/ magnus
--
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/