Message-ID: <24dfb6fc-5d54-6ee2-9195-26428b7ecf8a@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Mar 2021 08:37:30 +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 10:35 pm, Asutosh Das (asd) wrote:
> On 3/16/2021 12:48 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> Yes this is with DL_FLAG_RPM_ACTIVE.
> 
> Please let me share a log here:
> BEF means - Before, AFT means After.
> 
> [    6.843445][    T7] scsi 0:0:0:4: [UFSDBG]: ufshcd_setup_links:4779:  supp: usage_cnt: 3 Link - 0:0:0:49488 link-rpm_active: 2 avail_luns: 5
> [    6.892545][    T7] scsi 0:0:0:4: pm_runtime_get_suppliers: (0:0:0:49488): supp: usage_count: 5 rpm_active: 4
> 
> In the above log, T7 is the context in which this scsi device is being added - scsi_sysfs_add_sdev()
> 
> [    6.931846][    T7] ufs_rpmb_wlun 0:0:0:4: [UFSDBG]: ufshcd_rpmb_probe:9692: invoked
> [    6.941246][    T7] scsi 0:0:0:4: pm_runtime_put_suppliers: rpm_active: 4
> 
> [    6.941246][    T7] scsi 0:0:0:4: pm_runtime_put_suppliers: (0:0:0:49488) [BEF] usage_count: 5
> [    6.941247][    T7] scsi 0:0:0:4: pm_runtime_put_suppliers: (0:0:0:49488) [AFT] usage_count: 4 rpm_active: 3
> 
> [    6.941267][    T7] scsi 0:0:0:4: rpm_put_suppliers: [BEF] Supp (0:0:0:49488) usage_count: 4 rpm_active: 3
> 
> ------ T196 Context comes in while T7 is running ----------
> [    6.941466][  T196] scsi 0:0:0:4: pm_runtime_get_suppliers: (0:0:0:49488): supp: usage_count: 5 rpm_active: 4
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> [    7.788397][    T7] scsi 0:0:0:4: rpm_put_suppliers: [AFT] Supp (0:0:0:49488) usage_count: 2 rpm_active: 1



> 
> -- 
> 
> T196 is the context in which sd_probe() is invoked for this scsi device.
> 
> [    7.974410][  T196] sd 0:0:0:4: [sde] Attached SCSI disk
> [    7.984188][  T196] sd 0:0:0:4: pm_runtime_put_suppliers: rpm_active: 2
> [    7.998424][  T196] sd 0:0:0:4: pm_runtime_put_suppliers: (0:0:0:49488) [BEF] usage_count: 4
> [    8.017320][  T196] sd 0:0:0:4: pm_runtime_put_suppliers: (0:0:0:49488) [AFT] usage_count: 1 rpm_active: 1
> 
> The reference to the link is released after sd_probe() is completed.
> At this point, the rpm_active should be 2. And the rpm_active should become 1 when sd 0:0:0:4 actually suspends. But at the end of sd_probe() the suspend is only scheduled. However the supplier is now free to suspend.
> 
> In this log, the usage_count of supplier becomes 0 here:
> [   11.963885][  T117] sd 0:0:0:7: rpm_put_suppliers: [BEF] Supp (0:0:0:49488) usage_count: 1 rpm_active: 2
> [   11.973821][  T117] sd 0:0:0:7: rpm_put_suppliers: [AFT] Supp (0:0:0:49488) usage_count: 0 rpm_active: 1
> 
> However, the consumer sd 0:0:0:4 is still active but has released the reference to the supplier:

If that is the case, then it is an error in PM not UFS.

A second look at the code around rpm_put_suppliers() does look
potentially racy, since there does not appear to be anything
stopping the runtime_status changing between
spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock) and device_links_read_lock().

Rafael, can you comment?

	/*
	 * If the device is suspending and the callback has returned success,
	 * drop the usage counters of the suppliers that have been reference
	 * counted on its resume.
	 *
	 * Do that if the resume fails too.
	 */
	put = dev->power.runtime_status == RPM_SUSPENDING && !retval;
	if (put)
		__update_runtime_status(dev, RPM_SUSPENDED);
	else
		put = get && retval;

	if (put) {
		spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock);

		idx = device_links_read_lock();

fail:
		rpm_put_suppliers(dev);

		device_links_read_unlock(idx);

		spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
	}




> [   12.002792][  T117] scsi 0:0:0:49456: rpm_status - 2
> [   12.002806][  T117] sd 0:0:0:0: rpm_status - 2
> [   12.002834][  T117] sd 0:0:0:1: rpm_status - 2
> [   12.017730][  T117] sd 0:0:0:2: rpm_status - 2
> [   12.041317][  T117] sd 0:0:0:3: rpm_status - 2
> [   12.045953][  T117] sd 0:0:0:4: rpm_status - 0
> 
> And sd 0:0:0:4 tries to suspend here:
> [   15.465914][  T117] sd 0:0:0:4: [sde] Synchronizing SCSI cache
> 
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
> If pm_runtime_allow() is invoked from ufshcd_wl_probe() it'd invoke runtime_suspend on hba->sdev_ufs_device before exiting scsi_sysfs_add_sdev(). So I think pm_runtime_allow() should be invoked in ufshcd_scsi_add_wlus().
> 
>>>> 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.
>>>>
> Correct, scsi_autopm_get_device(hba->sdev_ufs_device) should be invoked before ufshcd_blk_pm_runtime_init(hba->sdev_ufs_device).
> Now a corresponding scsi_autopm_put_device(hba->sdev_ufs_device) is invoked after the consumers are added in ufshcd_setup_links().
> Even then I think this issue would still pop up.
> 
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>> It is more likely that I'm using it incorrectly :).
> 
>> 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.
>>
> Ok, understood.
> 
>> v11 could be hiding issues rather than fixing them.
>>
> Based on the logs, in v11, I tried to forbid any runtime-suspend until sd_probe() is done.
> I could be misunderstanding the whole thing though.
> 
> Having said that, I will make the changes as per your suggestions and push a v12. I will test with v12 as well and see if this issue is seen.
> 
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> 
> -- 
> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
> Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

Powered by blists - more mailing lists