linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] PM / Wakeirq: Add minimal device wakeirq helper functions

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]

Date:	Sat, 07 Mar 2015 00:30:25 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Andreas Fenkart <afenkart@...il.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>,
	Huiquan Zhong <huiquan.zhong@...el.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
	Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] PM / Wakeirq: Add minimal device wakeirq helper functions

On Friday, March 06, 2015 02:05:43 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Mar 2015, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> 
> > > > +	struct wakeirq_source *wirq = _wirq;
> > > > +	irqreturn_t ret = IRQ_NONE;
> > > > +
> > > > +	/* We don't want RPM_ASYNC or RPM_NOWAIT here */
> > > > +	if (pm_runtime_suspended(wirq->dev)) {
> > > 
> > > What if the device is resumed on a different CPU right here?
> > 
> > Good point, sounds like we need to do this in some pm_runtime
> > function directly for the locking.
> >  
> > > > +		pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(wirq->dev);
> > > > +		pm_runtime_resume(wirq->dev);
> > > 
> > > Calling this with disabled interrupts is a bad idea in general.
> > > Is the device guaranteed to have power.irq_safe set?
> > 
> > Well right now it's using threaded irq, and I'd like to get rid of
> > the pm_runtime calls in the regular driver interrupts completely.
> > We need to ensure the device runtime_resume is completed before
> > returning IRQ_HANDLED here.
> 
> In general, runtime_resume methods are allowed to sleep.  They can't be
> used in an interrupt handler top half unless the driver has
> specifically promised they are IRQ-safe.  That's what Rafael was
> getting at.
> 
> Of course, if this routine is a threaded-irq bottom half then there's 
> no problem.

Yup.  I overlooked the threaded part.

> > > I guess what you want to call here is pm_request_resume() and
> > > I wouldn't say that calling pm_runtime_mark_last_busy() on a
> > > suspended device was valid.
> > 
> > I'll verify again, but I believe the issue was that without doing
> > mark_last_busy here the device falls back asleep right away.
> > That probably should be fixed in pm_runtime in general if that's
> > the case.
> 
> It's up to the subsystem to handle this.  For example, the USB 
> subsystem's runtime-resume routine calls pm_runtime_mark_last_busy.

I'm wondering, though, if there's any reason for us to avoid updating
power.last_busy in rpm_resume().

If I was a driver writer, I'd expect the core to do that for me quite frankly.

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/