Message-ID: <560D77F1.5060309@ti.com>
Date:	Thu, 1 Oct 2015 13:14:09 -0500
From:	Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
CC:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver core: Ensure proper suspend/resume ordering

On 09/17/2015 06:59 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Grygorii Strashko
> <grygorii.strashko@...com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 09/17/2015 03:07 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 03:27:55 PM Alan Stern wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think, It should prohibited to probe devices during suspend/hibernation.
>>>>> And solution introduced in this patch might help to fix it -
>>>>> in general, we could do :
>>>>> - add sync point on suspend enter: wait_for_device_probe() and
>>>>> - prohibit probing: move all devices which will request probing into
>>>>> deferred_probe list
>>>>> - one suspend exit: allow probing and do driver_deferred_probe_trigger
>>>>
>>>> That could work; it's a good idea.
>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to mention here that this patch will work only
>>>>> if dmp_list will be filled according device creation order ("parent<-child" dependencies)
>>>>> *AND* according device's probing order ("supplier<-consumer").
>>>>> So, if there is the case when Parent device can be probed AFTER its children
>>>>> - it will not work, because "parent<-child" dependencies will not be tracked
>>>>> any more :( Sry, I could not even imagine that such crazy case exist :'(
>>>>
>>>> If we avoid moving devices to the end of the dpm_list when they already
>>>> have children, then we should be okay, right?
>>>>
>>>>> Are there any other subsystems with the same behavior like PCI?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know.
>>>>
>>>>> If not - probably, it could be fixed in PCI subsystem using device_pm_move_after() or
>>>>> device_move() in PCIe ports probe.
>>>>> if yes - ... maybe we can scan/re-check and reorder dpm_list on suspend enter and
>>>>> restore ("parent<-child" dependencies).
>>>>
>>>>> Truth is that smth. need to be done 100%. Personally, I was hit by this issue also,
>>>>>    and it cost me 3 hours of debugging and I came up with the same patch as
>>>>> Bill Huang, then spent some time trying to understand what is wrong with PCI
>>>>> - finally, I've just changed the order of my devices in DT :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, I think, it will be good to have this patch in -next to collect more feedbacks.
>>>>
>>>> I like the idea of forcing all probes during a sleep transition to be
>>>> deferred.  We could carry them out just before unfreezing the user
>>>> threads.  That combined with the change mentioned above ought to be
>>>> worth testing.
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>
>> I've prepared code change which should prohibit devices probing during suspend/hibernation
>> (below). It also expected to fix wait_for_device_probe() to take into account the case
>> when the deferred probe workqueue could be still active.
>>
>> NOTE: It's only compile time tested!
>>
>> I'm very sorry that I'm replying here instead of sending a proper patch -
>> I'm on business trip right now and I will be traveling next week also and will not
>> be able to work on it intensively.
>>
>> If proposed approach is correct I can send RFC/RFT patch/es (or anyone else could
>> pick up it if interested to move forward faster).
>>
>> --
>> regards,
>> -grygorii
>>
>>  From d29e554bf1d593c6c52d2902872ba8a6c48a80a8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
>> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 18:33:54 +0300
>> Subject: [RFC/RFT PATCH] PM / sleep: prohibit devices probing during suspend/hibernation
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/base/dd.c      | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>   include/linux/device.h |  1 +
>>   kernel/power/process.c |  8 ++++++++
>>   3 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/base/dd.c b/drivers/base/dd.c
>> index be0eb46..dcadf30 100644
>> --- a/drivers/base/dd.c
>> +++ b/drivers/base/dd.c
>> @@ -55,6 +55,14 @@ static struct workqueue_struct *deferred_wq;
>>   static atomic_t deferred_trigger_count = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
>>
>>   /*
>> + * In some cases, like suspend to RAM or hibernation, It might be reasonable
>> + * to prohibit probing of devices as it could be unsafe.
>> + * Once driver_force_probe_deferral is true all drivers probes will
>> + * be forcibly deferred
>> + */
>> +static bool driver_force_probe_deferral;
> 
> What about defer_all_probes ?

ok

> 
>> +
>> +/*
>>    * deferred_probe_work_func() - Retry probing devices in the active list.
>>    */
>>   static void deferred_probe_work_func(struct work_struct *work)
>> @@ -171,6 +179,14 @@ static void driver_deferred_probe_trigger(void)
>>          queue_work(deferred_wq, &deferred_probe_work);
>>   }
>>
>> +void device_force_probe_deferral(bool enable)
> 
> device_defer_all_probes ?
> 

ok

>> +{
>> +       driver_force_probe_deferral = enable;
>> +       if (!enable)
>> +               driver_deferred_probe_trigger();
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(device_force_probe_deferral);
> 
> That doesn't need to be exported, it is only called by statically linked code.
> 

ok

>> +
>>   /**
>>    * deferred_probe_initcall() - Enable probing of deferred devices
>>    *
>> @@ -277,9 +293,15 @@ static DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD(probe_waitqueue);
>>
>>   static int really_probe(struct device *dev, struct device_driver *drv)
>>   {
>> -       int ret = 0;
>> +       int ret = -EPROBE_DEFER;
>>          int local_trigger_count = atomic_read(&deferred_trigger_count);
>>
>> +       if (driver_force_probe_deferral) {
> 
> What if the above is evaluated before the suspend sequence starts ->
> 
>> +               dev_dbg(dev, "Driver %s force probe deferral\n", drv->name);
>> +               driver_deferred_probe_add(dev);
>> +               return ret;
>> +       }
>> +
> 
> -> and the code below runs after it has started?
> 
> Isn't that racy?

No. as below :)

> 
>>          atomic_inc(&probe_count);
>>          pr_debug("bus: '%s': %s: probing driver %s with device %s\n",
>>                   drv->bus->name, __func__, drv->name, dev_name(dev));
>> @@ -391,6 +413,10 @@ int driver_probe_done(void)
>>    */
>>   void wait_for_device_probe(void)
>>   {
>> +       /* wait for the deferred probe workqueue to finish */
>> +       if (driver_deferred_probe_enable)
>> +               flush_workqueue(deferred_wq);
>> +
>>          /* wait for the known devices to complete their probing */
>>          wait_event(probe_waitqueue, atomic_read(&probe_count) == 0);
>>          async_synchronize_full();
>> diff --git a/include/linux/device.h b/include/linux/device.h
>> index 5d7bc63..c68b8e1 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/device.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/device.h
>> @@ -1034,6 +1034,7 @@ extern int  __must_check device_attach(struct device *dev);
>>   extern int __must_check driver_attach(struct device_driver *drv);
>>   extern void device_initial_probe(struct device *dev);
>>   extern int __must_check device_reprobe(struct device *dev);
>> +extern void device_force_probe_deferral(bool enable);
>>
>>   /*
>>    * Easy functions for dynamically creating devices on the fly
>> diff --git a/kernel/power/process.c b/kernel/power/process.c
>> index 564f786..c13e78d 100644
>> --- a/kernel/power/process.c
>> +++ b/kernel/power/process.c
>> @@ -148,6 +148,13 @@ int freeze_processes(void)
>>          if (!error && !oom_killer_disable())
>>                  error = -EBUSY;
>>
>> +       if (!error) {
>> +               /** wait for the known devices to complete their probing */
>> +               wait_for_device_probe();
>> +               device_force_probe_deferral(true);
>> +               wait_for_device_probe();
> 
> Ah, OK.  So the second wait_for_device_probe() avoids the race.
> 
> What is the first one for?

That's required to satisfy hibernation restore needs - we should give a chance
 to already active probes to finish, because this could be a boot time. 

> 
> In any case, maybe call that from dpm_suspend_start() after
> dpm_prepare() has run successfully?  This is the point we need to
> start to block probing after all.
> 

That's what i've thought at the beginning. But, unfortunately, I've
found at least one case when dpm_prepare() is used alone:

hibernation_snapshot() ->  dpm_prepare()

As result, I've placed probe sync code in freeze_processes() as it's
called always and for all Low-Power states.

>> +       }
>> +
>>          if (error)
>>                  thaw_processes();
>>          return error;
>> @@ -190,6 +197,7 @@ void thaw_processes(void)
>>                  atomic_dec(&system_freezing_cnt);
>>          pm_freezing = false;
>>          pm_nosig_freezing = false;
>> +       device_force_probe_deferral(false);
> 
> And why don't you call that from dpm_resume_end()?

Same is here.

hibernate.c (2 matches)
hibernation_snapshot, line 367:  dpm_complete(PMSG_RECOVER);
hibernation_snapshot, line 398:  dpm_complete(msg);


I'm very sorry for delayed reply.


-- 
regards,
-grygorii
--
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