| 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: <1352340276.7176.37.camel@yhuang-dev>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 10:04:36 +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 02:35 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, November 08, 2012 09:15:08 AM Huang Ying wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean.
I mean your patch can fix the driver-less VGA issue. And it is better
than my original patch. The following discussion is not about this
specific issue. Just about PM core logic.
> > Do we still need to clarify state about disabled and forbidden? When a
> > device is forbidden and the usage_count > 0,
>
> "Forbidden" always means usage_count > 0.
Yes.
> > is it a good idea to allow to set device state to SUSPENDED if the device
> > is disabled?
>
> No, it is not. The status should always be ACTIVE as long as usage_count > 0.
> However, in some cases we actually would like to change the status to
> SUSPENDED when usage_count becomes equal to 0, because that means we can
> suspend (I mean really suspend) the parents of the devices in question
> (and we want to notify the parents in those cases).
So do you think Alan Stern's suggestion about forbidden and disabled is
the right way to go?
> Make pm_runtime_set_suspended() fail if runtime PM is
> forbidden.
>
> Make pm_runtime_forbid() call pm_runtime_set_active()
> (and do a runtime resume of the parent) if disable_depth > 0.
>
> Make the PCI runtime-idle routine call
> pm_runtime_set_suspended() if disable_depth > 0. Or maybe
> do this for all devices, in the runtime PM core.
In this way, we do not really need to call pm_runtime_set_suspended() in
fact. Because if disabled and usage_count=0, device will be set to
SUSPENDED state automatically.
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