Message-ID: <c1b38327-fece-4e31-709b-84ec775c6e18@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 Mar 2021 09:48:45 +0200
From:   Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
To:     "Asutosh Das (asd)" <asutoshd@...eaurora.org>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, cang@...eaurora.org,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        "open list:TARGET SUBSYSTEM" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        Kiwoong Kim <kwmad.kim@...sung.com>,
        Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Wei Yongjun <weiyongjun1@...wei.com>,
        Dinghao Liu <dinghao.liu@....edu.cn>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
        Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@...el.com>,
        Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
        Satya Tangirala <satyat@...gle.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/SAMSUNG S3C, S5P AND EXYNOS ARM ARCHITECTURES" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "open list:ARM/SAMSUNG S3C, S5P AND EXYNOS ARM ARCHITECTURES" 
        <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:UNIVERSAL FLASH STORAGE HOST CONTROLLER DRIVER..." 
        <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux-PM mailing list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 1/2] scsi: ufs: Enable power management for wlun

On 16/03/21 12:22 am, Asutosh Das (asd) wrote:
> On 3/14/2021 1:11 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>> On 10/03/21 5:04 am, Asutosh Das (asd) wrote:
>>> On 3/9/2021 7:56 AM, Asutosh Das (asd) wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/2021 9:17 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 5:21 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 5:17 PM Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 06:54:24PM -0800, Asutosh Das (asd) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now during my testing I see a weird issue sometimes (1 in 7).
>>>>>>>> Scenario - bootups
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Issue:
>>>>>>>> The supplier 'ufs_device_wlun 0:0:0:49488' goes into runtime suspend even
>>>>>>>> when one/more of its consumers are in RPM_ACTIVE state.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Log:
>>>>>>>> [   10.056379][  T206] sd 0:0:0:1: [sdb] Synchronizing SCSI cache
>>>>>>>> [   10.062497][  T113] sd 0:0:0:5: [sdf] Synchronizing SCSI cache
>>>>>>>> [   10.356600][   T32] sd 0:0:0:7: [sdh] Synchronizing SCSI cache
>>>>>>>> [   10.362944][  T174] sd 0:0:0:3: [sdd] Synchronizing SCSI cache
>>>>>>>> [   10.696627][   T83] sd 0:0:0:2: [sdc] Synchronizing SCSI cache
>>>>>>>> [   10.704562][  T170] sd 0:0:0:6: [sdg] Synchronizing SCSI cache
>>>>>>>> [   10.980602][    T5] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Synchronizing SCSI cache
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /** Printing all the consumer nodes of supplier **/
>>>>>>>> [   10.987327][    T5] ufs_device_wlun 0:0:0:49488: usage-count @ suspend: 0
>>>>>>>> <-- this is the usage_count
>>>>>>>> [   10.994440][    T5] ufs_rpmb_wlun 0:0:0:49476: PM state - 2
>>>>>>>> [   11.000402][    T5] scsi 0:0:0:49456: PM state - 2
>>>>>>>> [   11.005453][    T5] sd 0:0:0:0: PM state - 2
>>>>>>>> [   11.009958][    T5] sd 0:0:0:1: PM state - 2
>>>>>>>> [   11.014469][    T5] sd 0:0:0:2: PM state - 2
>>>>>>>> [   11.019072][    T5] sd 0:0:0:3: PM state - 2
>>>>>>>> [   11.023595][    T5] sd 0:0:0:4: PM state - 0 << RPM_ACTIVE
>>>>>>>> [   11.353298][    T5] sd 0:0:0:5: PM state - 2
>>>>>>>> [   11.357726][    T5] sd 0:0:0:6: PM state - 2
>>>>>>>> [   11.362155][    T5] sd 0:0:0:7: PM state - 2
>>>>>>>> [   11.366584][    T5] ufshcd-qcom 1d84000.ufshc: __ufshcd_wl_suspend - 8709
>>>>>>>> [   11.374366][    T5] ufs_device_wlun 0:0:0:49488: __ufshcd_wl_suspend -
>>>>>>>> (0) has rpm_active flags
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you mean that rpm_active of the link between the consumer and the
>>>>>> supplier is greater than 0 at this point and the consumer is
>>>>>
>>>>> I mean is rpm_active of the link greater than 1 (because 1 means "no
>>>>> active references to the supplier")?
>>>> Hi Rafael:
>>>> No - it is not greater than 1.
>>>>
>>>> I'm trying to understand what's going on in it; will update when I've something.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> RPM_ACTIVE, but the supplier suspends successfully nevertheless?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [   11.383376][    T5] ufs_device_wlun 0:0:0:49488:
>>>>>>>> ufshcd_wl_runtime_suspend <-- Supplier suspends fine.
>>>>>>>> [   12.977318][  T174] sd 0:0:0:4: [sde] Synchronizing SCSI cache
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And the the suspend of sde is stuck now:
>>>>>>>> schedule+0x9c/0xe0
>>>>>>>> schedule_timeout+0x40/0x128
>>>>>>>> io_schedule_timeout+0x44/0x68
>>>>>>>> wait_for_common_io+0x7c/0x100
>>>>>>>> wait_for_completion_io+0x14/0x20
>>>>>>>> blk_execute_rq+0x90/0xcc
>>>>>>>> __scsi_execute+0x104/0x1c4
>>>>>>>> sd_sync_cache+0xf8/0x2a0
>>>>>>>> sd_suspend_common+0x74/0x11c
>>>>>>>> sd_suspend_runtime+0x14/0x20
>>>>>>>> scsi_runtime_suspend+0x64/0x94
>>>>>>>> __rpm_callback+0x80/0x2a4
>>>>>>>> rpm_suspend+0x308/0x614
>>>>>>>> pm_runtime_work+0x98/0xa8
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I added 'DL_FLAG_RPM_ACTIVE' while creating links.
>>>>>>>>         if (hba->sdev_ufs_device) {
>>>>>>>>                 link = device_link_add(&sdev->sdev_gendev,
>>>>>>>>                                     &hba->sdev_ufs_device->sdev_gendev,
>>>>>>>>                                    DL_FLAG_PM_RUNTIME|DL_FLAG_RPM_ACTIVE);
>>>>>>>> I didn't expect this to resolve the issue anyway and it didn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Another interesting point here is when I resume any of the above suspended
>>>>>>>> consumers, it all goes back to normal, which is kind of expected. I tried
>>>>>>>> resuming the consumer and the supplier is resumed and the supplier is
>>>>>>>> suspended when all the consumers are suspended.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any pointers on this issue please?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> @Bart/@...n - Do you've any pointers please?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's very noticeable that although you seem to have isolated a bug in
>>>>>>> the power management subsystem (supplier goes into runtime suspend
>>>>>>> even when one of its consumers is still active), you did not CC the
>>>>>>> power management maintainer or mailing list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have added the appropriate CC's.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks Alan!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hello
>>> I & Can (thanks CanG) debugged this further:
>>>
>>> Looks like this issue can occur if the sd probe is asynchronous.
>>>
>>> Essentially, the sd_probe() is done asynchronously and driver_probe_device() invokes pm_runtime_get_suppliers() before invoking sd_probe().
>>>
>>> But scsi_probe_and_add_lun() runs in a separate context.
>>> So the scsi_autopm_put_device() invoked from scsi_scan_host() context reduces the link->rpm_active to 1. And sd_probe() invokes scsi_autopm_put_device() and starts a timer. And then driver_probe_device() invoked from __device_attach_async_helper context reduces the link->rpm_active to 1 thus enabling the supplier to suspend before the consumer suspends.
>>>
>>> So if:
>>> Context T1:
>>> [1] scsi_probe_and_add_lun()
>>> [2]    |- scsi_autopm_put_device() - reduce the link->rpm_active to 1
>>>
>>> Context T2:
>>> __device_attach_async_helper()
>>>      |- driver_probe_device()
>>>          |- sd_probe()
>>> In between [1] and [2] say, driver_probe_device() -> sd_probe() is invoked in a separate context from __device_attach_async_helper().
>>> The driver_probe_device() -> pm_runtime_get_suppliers() but [2] would reduce link->rpm_active to 1.
>>> Then sd_probe() would invoke rpm_resume() and proceed as is.
>>> When sd_probe() invokes scsi_autopm_put_device() it'd start a timer, dev->power.timer_autosuspends = 1.
>>>
>>> Now then, pm_runtime_put_suppliers() is invoked from driver_probe_device() and that makes the link->rpm_active = 1.
>>> But by now, the corresponding 'sd dev' (consumer) usage_count = 0, state = RPM_ACTIVE and link->rpm_active = 1.
>>> At this point of time, all other 'sd dev' (consumers) _may_ be suspended or active but would have the link->rpm_active = 1.
>>
>> Is this with DL_FLAG_RPM_ACTIVE?  In that case, wouldn't active
>> consumers have link->rpm_active = 2 and also have incremented
>> the supplier's usage_count?
>>
>> Another outstanding issue that comes to mind, is to ensure
>> hba->sdev_ufs_device does not runtime suspend before it is probed.
>> I suggest changing ufshcd_slave_configure() so it does not set
>> sdev->rpm_autosuspend for hba->sdev_ufs_device, and instead do
>> pm_runtime_allow / pm_runtime_forbid() in ufshcd_wl_probe() /
>> ufshcd_wl_remove() respectively.
>>
>> However we still want to stop hba->sdev_ufs_device runtime
>> suspending while consumers are being added.  With that in mind,
>> I would expect pm_runtime_get_noresume(&hba->sdev_ufs_device->sdev_gendev)
>> in ufshcd_scsi_add_wlus() to come *before*
>> ufshcd_blk_pm_runtime_init(hba->sdev_ufs_device).  In fact, it would
>> be more logical to make it, pm_runtime_get_sync() since we require
>> hba->sdev_ufs_device to be active at that point.
>>
>>
> 
> Hi Adrian,
> I think the v11 that I pushed can handle this.
> runtime-suspend is forbidden at probe and is re-enabled after probe is done. Please take a look and let me know if I'm missing something.

If the PM APIs are being used correctly, the usage and active
counts should never be wrong.  If they were, then that would
be an issue for the PM framework.

However, it is hard to tell what the issues are until all the
UFS driver changes have been completed, such as the ones I
suggested above above.

v11 could be hiding issues rather than fixing them.

> 
>>>
>>> Since the supplier has 0 auto-suspend delay, it now suspends!
>>>
>>>
>>> Context [T1]
>>> Call trace:
>>> dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1d4
>>> show_stack+0x18/0x24
>>> dump_stack+0xc4/0x144
>>> __pm_runtime_idle+0xb4/0x184
>>> scsi_autopm_put_device+0x18/0x24
>>> scsi_sysfs_add_sdev+0x26c/0x278
>>> scsi_probe_and_add_lun+0xbac/0xd48
>>> __scsi_scan_target+0x38c/0x510
>>> scsi_scan_host_selected+0x14c/0x1e4
>>> scsi_scan_host+0x1e0/0x228
>>> ufshcd_async_scan+0x39c/0x408
>>> async_run_entry_fn+0x48/0x128
>>> process_one_work+0x1f0/0x470
>>> worker_thread+0x26c/0x4c8
>>> kthread+0x13c/0x320
>>> ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
>>>
>>>
>>> Context [T2]
>>> Call trace:
>>> dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1d4
>>> show_stack+0x18/0x24
>>> dump_stack+0xc4/0x144
>>> rpm_get_suppliers+0x48/0x1ac
>>> __rpm_callback+0x58/0x12c
>>> rpm_resume+0x3a4/0x618
>>> __pm_runtime_resume+0x50/0x80
>>> scsi_autopm_get_device+0x20/0x54
>>> sd_probe+0x40/0x3d0
>>> really_probe+0x1bc/0x4a0
>>> driver_probe_device+0x84/0xf0
>>> __device_attach_driver+0x114/0x138
>>> bus_for_each_drv+0x84/0xd0
>>> __device_attach_async_helper+0x7c/0xf0
>>> async_run_entry_fn+0x48/0x128
>>> process_one_work+0x1f0/0x470
>>> worker_thread+0x26c/0x4c8
>>> kthread+0x13c/0x320
>>> ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
>>>
>>> Below prints show how link->rpm_active becomes 1 for sd 0:0:0:4
>>> [    7.574654][  T212] Call trace:
>>> [    7.574657][  T212]  dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1d4
>>> [    7.574661][  T212]  show_stack+0x18/0x24
>>> [    7.574665][  T212]  dump_stack+0xc4/0x144
>>> [    7.574668][  T212]  __pm_runtime_idle+0xb4/0x184
>>> [    7.574671][  T212]  scsi_autopm_put_device+0x18/0x24
>>> [    7.574675][  T212]  sd_probe+0x314/0x3d0
>>> [    7.574677][  T212]  really_probe+0x1bc/0x4a0
>>> [    7.574680][  T212]  driver_probe_device+0x84/0xf0
>>> [    7.574683][  T212]  __device_attach_driver+0x114/0x138
>>> [    7.574686][  T212]  bus_for_each_drv+0x84/0xd0
>>> [    7.574689][  T212]  __device_attach_async_helper+0x7c/0xf0
>>> [    7.574692][  T212]  async_run_entry_fn+0x48/0x128
>>> [    7.574695][  T212]  process_one_work+0x1f0/0x470
>>> [    7.574698][  T212]  worker_thread+0x26c/0x4c8
>>> [    7.574700][  T212]  kthread+0x13c/0x320
>>> [    7.574703][  T212]  ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
>>> [    7.574706][  T212] sd 0:0:0:4: scsi_runtime_idle
>>> [    7.574712][  T212] sd 0:0:0:4: __pm_runtime_idle: aft: [UFSDBG]: pwr.timer_autosuspends: 1 pwr.request_pending: 0 retval: -16 pwr.request: 0 usage_count: 0 rpm_status: 0 link-rpm_active:2
>>> [    7.574715][  T212] sd 0:0:0:4: sd_probe: [UFSDBG]: Exit
>>> [    7.574738][  T212] sd 0:0:0:4: __pm_runtime_idle: b4: [UFSDBG]: pwr.request: 0 usage_count: 0 rpm_status: 0 link-rpm_active:2
>>>
>>> [    7.574752][  T212] Workqueue: events_unbound async_run_entry_fn
>>> [    7.574754][  T212] Call trace:
>>> [    7.574758][  T212]  dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1d4
>>> [    7.574761][  T212]  show_stack+0x18/0x24
>>> [    7.574765][  T212]  dump_stack+0xc4/0x144
>>> [    7.574767][  T212]  __pm_runtime_idle+0xb4/0x184
>>> [    7.574770][  T212]  driver_probe_device+0x94/0xf0
>>> [    7.574773][  T212]  __device_attach_driver+0x114/0x138
>>> [    7.574775][  T212]  bus_for_each_drv+0x84/0xd0
>>> [    7.574778][  T212]  __device_attach_async_helper+0x7c/0xf0
>>> [    7.574781][  T212]  async_run_entry_fn+0x48/0x128
>>> [    7.574783][  T212]  process_one_work+0x1f0/0x470
>>> [    7.574786][  T212]  worker_thread+0x26c/0x4c8
>>> [    7.574788][  T212]  kthread+0x13c/0x320
>>> [    7.574791][  T212]  ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
>>> [    7.574848][   T80] sd 0:0:0:4: scsi_runtime_idle
>>> [    7.574858][  T212] sd 0:0:0:4: __pm_runtime_idle: aft: [UFSDBG]: pwr.timer_autosuspends: 1 pwr.request_pending: 0 retval: 0 pwr.request: 0 usage_count: 0 rpm_status: 0 link-rpm_active:2
>>> [    7.574863][  T212] sd 0:0:0:4: pm_runtime_put_suppliers: [UFSDBG]: rpm_status: 0 link-rpm_active:1
>>> [    7.574866][  T212] sd 0:0:0:4: async probe completed
>>> [    7.574870][  T212] sd 0:0:0:4: __pm_runtime_idle: b4: [UFSDBG]: pwr.request: 0 usage_count: 0 rpm_status: 0 link-rpm_active:1
>>>
>>>
>>> So, from the above it looks like when async probe is enabled this is a possibility.
>>>
>>> I don't see a way around this. Please let me know if you (@Alan/@...t/@...ian) have any thoughts on this.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -asd
>>>
>>
> 
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists