| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1352337308.7176.28.camel@yhuang-dev>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 09:15:08 +0800
From: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUGFIX] PM: Fix active child counting when disabled and
forbidden
On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 00:09 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 07, 2012 11:51:15 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 07, 2012 04:56:49 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Right. The reasoning behind my proposal goes like this: When there's
> > > > > no driver, the subsystem can let userspace directly control the
> > > > > device's power level through the power/control attribute.
> > > >
> > > > Well, we might as well just leave the runtime PM of PCI devices enabled, even
> > > > if they have no drivers, but modify the PCI bus type's runtime PM callbacks
> > > > to ignore devices with no drivers.
> > > >
> > > > IIRC the reason why we decided to disable runtime PM for PCI device with no
> > > > drivers was that some of them refused to work again after being put by the
> > > > core into D3. By making the PCI bus type's runtime PM callbacks ignore them
> > > > we'd avoid this problem without modifying the core's behavior.
> > >
> > > It comes down to a question of the parent. If a driverless PCI device
> > > isn't being used, shouldn't its parent be allowed to go into runtime
> > > suspend? As things stand now, we do allow it.
> > >
> > > The problem is that we don't disallow it when the driverless device
> > > _is_ being used.
> >
> > We can make it depend on what's there in the control file. Let's say if that's
> > "on" (ie. the devices usage counter is not zero), we won't allow the parent
> > to be suspended.
> >
> > So, as I said, why don't we keep the runtime PM of PCI devices always enabled,
> > regardless of whether or not there is a driver, and arrange things in such a
> > way that the device is automatically "suspended" if user space writes "auto"
> > to the control file. IOW, I suppose we can do something like this:
>
> It probably is better to treat the "no driver" case in a special way, though:
>
> ---
> drivers/pci/pci-driver.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> drivers/pci/pci.c | 2 ++
> 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
> @@ -263,22 +263,17 @@ static long local_pci_probe(void *_ddi)
> /* The parent bridge must be in active state when probing */
> if (parent)
> pm_runtime_get_sync(parent);
> - /* Unbound PCI devices are always set to disabled and suspended.
> - * During probe, the device is set to enabled and active and the
> - * usage count is incremented. If the driver supports runtime PM,
> - * it should call pm_runtime_put_noidle() in its probe routine and
> + /*
> + * During probe, the device is set to active and the usage count is
> + * incremented. If the driver supports runtime PM, it should call
> + * pm_runtime_put_noidle() in its probe routine and
> * pm_runtime_get_noresume() in its remove routine.
> */
> - pm_runtime_get_noresume(dev);
> - pm_runtime_set_active(dev);
> - pm_runtime_enable(dev);
> -
> + pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
> rc = ddi->drv->probe(ddi->dev, ddi->id);
> - if (rc) {
> - pm_runtime_disable(dev);
> - pm_runtime_set_suspended(dev);
> - pm_runtime_put_noidle(dev);
> - }
> + if (rc)
> + pm_runtime_put_sync(dev);
> +
> if (parent)
> pm_runtime_put(parent);
> return rc;
> @@ -369,9 +364,7 @@ static int pci_device_remove(struct devi
> }
>
> /* Undo the runtime PM settings in local_pci_probe() */
> - pm_runtime_disable(dev);
> - pm_runtime_set_suspended(dev);
> - pm_runtime_put_noidle(dev);
> + pm_runtime_put_sync(dev);
>
> /*
> * If the device is still on, set the power state as "unknown",
> @@ -998,10 +991,14 @@ static int pci_pm_restore(struct device
> static int pci_pm_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev)
> {
> struct pci_dev *pci_dev = to_pci_dev(dev);
> - const struct dev_pm_ops *pm = dev->driver ? dev->driver->pm : NULL;
> + const struct dev_pm_ops *pm;
> pci_power_t prev = pci_dev->current_state;
> int error;
>
> + if (!dev->driver)
> + return 0;
> +
> + pm = dev->driver->pm;
> if (!pm || !pm->runtime_suspend)
> return -ENOSYS;
>
> @@ -1035,8 +1032,12 @@ static int pci_pm_runtime_resume(struct
> {
> int rc;
> struct pci_dev *pci_dev = to_pci_dev(dev);
> - const struct dev_pm_ops *pm = dev->driver ? dev->driver->pm : NULL;
> + const struct dev_pm_ops *pm;
> +
> + if (!dev->driver)
> + return 0;
>
> + pm = dev->driver->pm;
> if (!pm || !pm->runtime_resume)
> return -ENOSYS;
>
> @@ -1054,8 +1055,12 @@ static int pci_pm_runtime_resume(struct
>
> static int pci_pm_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
> {
> - const struct dev_pm_ops *pm = dev->driver ? dev->driver->pm : NULL;
> + const struct dev_pm_ops *pm;
> +
> + if (!dev->driver)
> + goto out:
>
> + pm = dev->driver->pm;
> if (!pm)
> return -ENOSYS;
>
> @@ -1065,8 +1070,8 @@ static int pci_pm_runtime_idle(struct de
> return ret;
> }
>
> + out:
> pm_runtime_suspend(dev);
> -
> return 0;
> }
>
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/pci/pci.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/pci/pci.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/pci/pci.c
> @@ -1868,6 +1868,8 @@ void pci_pm_init(struct pci_dev *dev)
> u16 pmc;
>
> pm_runtime_forbid(&dev->dev);
> + pm_runtime_set_active(dev);
> + pm_runtime_enable(&dev->dev);
> device_enable_async_suspend(&dev->dev);
> dev->wakeup_prepared = false;
>
I think the patch can fix the issue in a better way.
Do we still need to clarify state about disabled and forbidden? When a
device is forbidden and the usage_count > 0, is it a good idea to allow
to set device state to SUSPENDED if the device is disabled?
Best Regards,
Huang Ying
--
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