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: <1564097.buIA8Wdn8f@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Thu, 05 Nov 2015 03:15:18 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>
Cc:	Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
	dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] dmaengine: tegra-apb: Correct runtime-pm usage

On Wednesday, November 04, 2015 08:59:43 AM Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 01:25:09PM -0800, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> >> >>>>>  	/* Enable clock before accessing register */
> >> >>>>> -	ret = tegra_dma_runtime_resume(dev);
> >> >>>>> +	ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> If you are runtime suspended then core will runtime resume you before
> >> >>>> invoking suspend, so why do we need this
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Is this change now in the mainline? Do you have commit ID for that?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I recall the last time we discussed this that Rafael said that they were
> >> >>> going to do that, but he said as a rule of thumb if you need to resume
> >> >>> it, resume it [0].
> >> >> 
> >> >> IIRC this has been always the behaviour, at least I see this when I test the
> >> >> devices
> >> >
> >> > I have been doing some testing today and if the DMA is runtime
> >> > suspended, then I don't see it runtime resumed before suspend is called.
> >> >
> >> > Can you elborate on "at least I see this when I test the devices"? What
> >> > are you looking at? Are you using kernel function tracers in some way?
> >> 
> >> The PM core does a _get_noresume()[1] which tries to prevent runtime
> >> suspends *during* a system suspend.  However, the PM core should not be
> >> doing an actual runtime resume of the device, so if the device is
> >> already runtime suspended, it will not be runtime resumed by the core,
> >> so if the driver needs it to be runtime resumed, it needs to do it
> >> itself.
> >
> > + Rafael
> >
> > This is contrariry to what I see, If my driver is runtime suspended and on
> > suspend, it gets runtime resumed and then suspended
> 
> Since I was late to the thread, can you explain what kind of driver and
> on what bus type you're seeing this behavior?
> 
> It could be that your bus-type is doing something, but I don't think it
> should be the PM core.

Right.

Bus types do that, the core doesn't.  The ACPI PM domain does that too
for some devices.

So Vinod, more details, please.

Thanks,
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ