Message-ID: <8167646.6La0EzZQBr@avalon>
Date:	Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:41:37 +0300
From:	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
To:	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@...asonboard.com>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
	linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM / Runtime: Only force-resume device if it has been force-suspended

Hi Ulf,

On Thursday 21 Apr 2016 11:10:19 Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 21 April 2016 at 01:30, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Monday 07 Mar 2016 11:10:08 Ulf Hansson wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> 
> >>>> I agree, that's a better idea. Drivers shouldn't call
> >>>> pm_runtime_force_resume() if they haven't called
> >>>> pm_runtime_force_suspend(), so checking the PM use count should be
> >>>> fine. I'll modify the patch, test it and resubmit.
> >>> 
> >>> I gave it an unfortunately unsuccessful try. The problem I ran into is
> >>> that device_prepare() calls pm_runtime_get_noresume() calls
> >>> pm_runtime_get_noresume(), with the corresponding pm_runtime_put() call
> >>> being performed in device_complete(). The device power usage_count is
> >>> thus always non-zero in the system resume handler, so I can't base the
> >>> decision on that.
> >> 
> >> As Alan said, let's just check against 1 instead.
> > 
> > I gave this a try, and unfortunately it won't work.
> > 
> > pm_genpd_prepare() resumes devices without increasing the usage count,
> > which
>
> It doesn't resume them, it only increases the usage count.

Maybe there's something I don't get, but pm_genpd_prepare() ends with

        /*
         * The PM domain must be in the GPD_STATE_ACTIVE state at this point,
         * so genpd_poweron() will return immediately, but if the device
         * is suspended (e.g. it's been stopped by genpd_stop_dev()), we need
         * to make it operational.
         */
        pm_runtime_resume(dev);
        __pm_runtime_disable(dev, false);

        ret = pm_generic_prepare(dev);
        if (ret) {
                ... /* irrelevant error handling */
        }

        pm_runtime_put(dev);
        return ret;

The device is thus resumed. Note that the pm_runtime_put() call will decrease 
the usage count that was increased at the beginning of the function (and thus 
makes pm_genpd_prepare() neutral from a usage count point of view) but won't 
resume the device as the disable depth is increased by __pm_runtime_disable().

As far as I understand, the device is thus effectively active when entering 
the driver's system suspend handler, with a usage count equal to 1 or more. 
pm_runtime_force_suspend(), which decides whether to suspend the device based 
on the device pm state and not the usage count, will thus always pm suspend 
the device.

Is the above analysis correct ?

Now I'm a bit lost as to what happens (and what should happen) at resume time. 
Does genpd and the PM core try to suspend the device after calling the 
driver's resume handler (pm_runtime_force_resume() in this case) under some 
conditions, or does the resume handler have the last word in deciding the PM 
runtime status of the device after system resume ?

> > leads to the device always being active in pm_runtime_force_suspend(). The
> > usage count will be 1 if the device was suspended prior to entering system
> > suspend (due to the pm_runtime_get_noresume() call in device_prepare()) or
> > higher than 1 if the device was active.
> 
> It's only greater than 1 - if someone else than the PM core has
> increased the usage count.

That I agree with.

> > However, pm_genpd_prepare() will not resume the device if
> > suspend_power_off is set. In that case the device will be suspended with
> > a usage count of 1 in pm_runtime_force_suspend() or active with a usage
> > count higher than 1.
> > 
> > We thus can't detect at resume time whether we have force-suspended the
> > device using the usage count.
> 
> We don't need to detect this no more! Let me give you some background to
> why.
> 
> When the pm_runtime_force_suspend|resume() helpers were invented, we
> still had CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME and CONFIG_PM_SLEEP as separate Kconfig
> options.
> 
> To make sure these helpers worked for all combinations and without
> introducing too much complexity, we needed to always resume the device
> in pm_runtime_force_resume(). More precisely, when CONFIG_PM_SLEEP was
> used without CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME, we needed to resume the device as the
> driver/subsystem couldn't do it via a call to pm_runtime_get_sync()
> (or similar API).
> 
> As we have merged CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME into CONFIG_PM, the above
> described option has disappeared. This means the driver/bus indeed
> will be able to use pm_runtime_get_sync() to resume the device at a
> later point when needed.
> 
> > Unless someone has another clever idea I'll keep the
> > power.is_force_suspended flag and protect it with power.lock.
> > 
> >> > I also noticed that pm_genpd_prepare() runtime-resumes the device (when
> >> > the power domain is in the GPD_STATE_ACTIVE state). I don't know why
> >> > that
> >> > is, but it means that in practice my device gets runtime-resumed when
> >> > suspending the system while it could stay runtime-suspended in
> >> > practice.
> >> 
> >> I am aware of this and it's on my TODO list of improvements of genpd,
> >> The issue is related to an unoptimized behaviour for how genpd deal
> >> with wakeups during system PM.
> > 
> > Looking forward to seeing patches :-)
> 
> I have been cooking a patch. Very soon I will post it and will make
> sure you are on cc!
> 
> Of course any help in testing/reviewing will be highly appreciated!

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

Powered by blists - more mailing lists