| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <36864099-e9a0-83bf-8c9d-d821bb102a72@codeaurora.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 10:58:19 -0700
From: "Asutosh Das (asd)" <asutoshd@...eaurora.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....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 3/18/2021 10:54 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 6:33 PM Asutosh Das (asd)
> <asutoshd@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/18/2021 7:00 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 7:37 AM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Indeed, if the device is suspending, changing its PM-runtime status to
>>> RPM_SUSPENDED and dropping its power.lock allows a concurrent
>>> rpm_resume() to run and resume the device before the suppliers can be
>>> suspended.
>>>
>>> That's incorrect and has been introduced by commit 44cc89f76464 ("PM:
>>> runtime: Update device status before letting suppliers suspend").
>>>
>>> It is probably better to revert that commit and address the original
>>> issue in a different way.
>>>
>> Hello,
>> One approach to address the original issue could be to prevent the scsi
>> devices from suspending until the probe is completed, perhaps?
>
> I was talking about the original issue that commit 44cc89f76464
> attempted to address.
>
> I'm not sure if and how it is related to the issue you have been debugging.
>
Hi Rafael
Thanks for clarifying that.
Understood.
I was referring to the issue that I've been discussing with Adrian.
-asd
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
Powered by blists - more mailing lists