Message-ID: <CAPDyKFpyPov-faJ9dUszi38Q7-4OsowX=i8w=NCnTQ66_zooHg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:57:55 +0100
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        Maulik Shah <mkshah@...eaurora.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: runtime: Allow rpm_resume() to succeed when runtime
 PM is disabled

[...]

> > > > > >
> > > > > > Am I thinking correctly that this is mostly about working around the
> > > > > > limitations of pm_runtime_force_suspend()?
> > > > >
> > > > > No, this isn't related at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > The cpuidle-psci driver doesn't have PM callbacks, thus using
> > > > > pm_runtime_force_suspend() would not work here.
> > > >
> > > > Just wanted to send a ping on this to see if we can come to a
> > > > conclusion. Or maybe we did? :-)
> > > >
> > > > I think in the end, what slightly bothers me, is that the behavior is
> > > > a bit inconsistent. Although, maybe it's the best we can do.
> > >
> > > I've been thinking about this and it looks like we can do better, but
> > > instead of talking about this I'd rather send a patch.
> >
> > Alright.
> >
> > I was thinking along the lines of make similar changes for
> > rpm_idle|suspend(). That would make the behaviour even more
> > consistent, I think.
> >
> > Perhaps that's what you have in mind? :-)
>
> Well, not exactly.
>
> The idea is to add another counter (called restrain_depth in the patch)
> to prevent rpm_resume() from running the callback when that is potentially
> problematic.  With that, it is possible to actually distinguish devices
> with PM-runtime enabled and it allows the PM-runtime status to be checked
> when it is still known to be meaningful.

Hmm, I don't quite understand the benefit of introducing a new flag
for this. rpm_resume() already checks the disable_depth to understand
when it's safe to invoke the callback. Maybe there is a reason why
that isn't sufficient?

>
> It requires quite a few changes, but is rather straightforward, unless I'm
> missing something.
>
> Please see the patch below.  I've only checked that it builds on x86-64.
>
> ---
>  drivers/base/power/main.c    |   18 +++----
>  drivers/base/power/runtime.c |  105 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>  include/linux/pm.h           |    2
>  include/linux/pm_runtime.h   |    2
>  4 files changed, 101 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-pm/include/linux/pm.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/include/linux/pm.h
> +++ linux-pm/include/linux/pm.h
> @@ -598,6 +598,7 @@ struct dev_pm_info {
>         atomic_t                usage_count;
>         atomic_t                child_count;
>         unsigned int            disable_depth:3;
> +       unsigned int            restrain_depth:3;       /* PM core private */
>         unsigned int            idle_notification:1;
>         unsigned int            request_pending:1;
>         unsigned int            deferred_resume:1;
> @@ -609,6 +610,7 @@ struct dev_pm_info {
>         unsigned int            use_autosuspend:1;
>         unsigned int            timer_autosuspends:1;
>         unsigned int            memalloc_noio:1;
> +       unsigned int            already_suspended:1;    /* PM core private */
>         unsigned int            links_count;
>         enum rpm_request        request;
>         enum rpm_status         runtime_status;
> Index: linux-pm/include/linux/pm_runtime.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/include/linux/pm_runtime.h
> +++ linux-pm/include/linux/pm_runtime.h
> @@ -46,6 +46,8 @@ extern void pm_runtime_enable(struct dev
>  extern void __pm_runtime_disable(struct device *dev, bool check_resume);
>  extern void pm_runtime_allow(struct device *dev);
>  extern void pm_runtime_forbid(struct device *dev);
> +extern void pm_runtime_restrain(struct device *dev);
> +extern void pm_runtime_relinquish(struct device *dev);
>  extern void pm_runtime_no_callbacks(struct device *dev);
>  extern void pm_runtime_irq_safe(struct device *dev);
>  extern void __pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(struct device *dev, bool use);
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> @@ -744,11 +744,11 @@ static int rpm_resume(struct device *dev
>   repeat:
>         if (dev->power.runtime_error)
>                 retval = -EINVAL;
> -       else if (dev->power.disable_depth == 1 && dev->power.is_suspended
> -           && dev->power.runtime_status == RPM_ACTIVE)
> -               retval = 1;
>         else if (dev->power.disable_depth > 0)
>                 retval = -EACCES;
> +       else if (dev->power.restrain_depth > 0)
> +               retval = dev->power.runtime_status == RPM_ACTIVE ? 1 : -EAGAIN;
> +
>         if (retval)
>                 goto out;
>
> @@ -1164,9 +1164,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pm_runtime_get_if_acti
>   * @dev: Device to handle.
>   * @status: New runtime PM status of the device.
>   *
> - * If runtime PM of the device is disabled or its power.runtime_error field is
> - * different from zero, the status may be changed either to RPM_ACTIVE, or to
> - * RPM_SUSPENDED, as long as that reflects the actual state of the device.
> + * If runtime PM of the device is disabled or restrained, or its
> + * power.runtime_error field is nonzero, the status may be changed either to
> + * RPM_ACTIVE, or to RPM_SUSPENDED, as long as that reflects its actual state.
>   * However, if the device has a parent and the parent is not active, and the
>   * parent's power.ignore_children flag is unset, the device's status cannot be
>   * set to RPM_ACTIVE, so -EBUSY is returned in that case.
> @@ -1195,13 +1195,16 @@ int __pm_runtime_set_status(struct devic
>         spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
>
>         /*
> -        * Prevent PM-runtime from being enabled for the device or return an
> -        * error if it is enabled already and working.
> +        * Prevent PM-runtime from being used for the device or return an
> +        * error if it is in use already.
>          */
> -       if (dev->power.runtime_error || dev->power.disable_depth)
> -               dev->power.disable_depth++;
> -       else
> +       if (dev->power.runtime_error || dev->power.disable_depth ||
> +           dev->power.restrain_depth) {
> +               pm_runtime_get_noresume(dev);

Why do we need to bump the usage count here? Except for balancing with
pm_runtime_relinquish() a few lines below, of course?

> +               dev->power.restrain_depth++;
> +       } else {
>                 error = -EAGAIN;
> +       }
>
>         spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
>
> @@ -1278,7 +1281,7 @@ int __pm_runtime_set_status(struct devic
>                 device_links_read_unlock(idx);
>         }
>
> -       pm_runtime_enable(dev);
> +       pm_runtime_relinquish(dev);
>
>         return error;
>  }
> @@ -1513,6 +1516,72 @@ void pm_runtime_allow(struct device *dev
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pm_runtime_allow);
>
>  /**
> + * pm_runtime_restrain - Temporarily block runtime PM of a device.
> + * @dev: Device to handle.
> + *
> + * Increase the device's usage count and its restrain_dpeth count.  If the
> + * latter was 0 initially, cancel the runtime PM work for @dev if pending and
> + * wait for all of the runtime PM operations on it in progress to complete.
> + *
> + * After this function has been called, attempts to runtime-suspend @dev will
> + * fail with -EAGAIN and attempts to runtime-resume it will succeed if its
> + * runtime PM status is RPM_ACTIVE and will fail with -EAGAIN otherwise.
> + *
> + * This function can only be called by the PM core.
> + */
> +void pm_runtime_restrain(struct device *dev)
> +{
> +       pm_runtime_get_noresume(dev);
> +
> +       spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
> +
> +       if (dev->power.restrain_depth++ > 0)
> +               goto out;
> +
> +       if (dev->power.disable_depth > 0) {
> +               dev->power.already_suspended = false;
> +               goto out;
> +       }
> +
> +       /* Update time accounting before blocking PM-runtime. */
> +       update_pm_runtime_accounting(dev);
> +
> +       __pm_runtime_barrier(dev);
> +
> +       dev->power.already_suspended = pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev);
> +
> +out:
> +       spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
> +}

What if someone calls pm_runtime_disable() after the PM core has
called pm_runtime_restrain() for a device? It looks like we may run
another round of __pm_runtime_barrier() and
update_pm_runtime_accounting(), does that really make sense?

> +
> +/**
> + * pm_runtime_relinquish - Unblock runtime PM of a device.
> + * @dev: Device to handle.
> + *
> + * Decrease the device's usage count and its restrain_dpeth count.
> + *
> + * This function can only be called by the PM core.
> + */
> +void pm_runtime_relinquish(struct device *dev)
> +{
> +       spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
> +
> +       if (dev->power.restrain_depth > 0) {
> +               dev->power.restrain_depth--;
> +
> +               /* About to unbolck runtime PM, set accounting_timestamp to now */
> +               if (!dev->power.restrain_depth && !dev->power.disable_depth)
> +                       dev->power.accounting_timestamp = ktime_get_mono_fast_ns();
> +       } else {
> +               dev_warn(dev, "Unbalanced %s!\n", __func__);
> +       }
> +
> +       spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
> +
> +       pm_runtime_put_noidle(dev);
> +}
> +
> +/**
>   * pm_runtime_no_callbacks - Ignore runtime PM callbacks for a device.
>   * @dev: Device to handle.
>   *
> @@ -1806,8 +1875,10 @@ int pm_runtime_force_suspend(struct devi
>         int (*callback)(struct device *);
>         int ret;
>
> -       pm_runtime_disable(dev);
> -       if (pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev))
> +       pm_runtime_restrain(dev);
> +
> +       /* No suspend if the device has already been suspended by PM-runtime. */
> +       if (!dev->power.already_suspended)

I assume you are looking at using pm_runtime_force_suspend|resume() to
support my use case for the cpuidle-psci driver? In other words,
replace pm_runtime_get_sync() and pm_runtime_put_sync_suspend() in
__psci_enter_domain_idle_state(), right?

If so, that doesn't really fit well, I think. Not only because we
don't have system suspend/resume callbacks available, which is really
the proper place to call the pm_runtime_force_*() functions from, but
also because we don't want to call __pm_runtime_barrier(), etc, every
time in the idle path of a CPU. If anything, we should instead strive
towards a more lightweight path than what we currently have.

>                 return 0;
>
>         callback = RPM_GET_CALLBACK(dev, runtime_suspend);
> @@ -1832,7 +1903,7 @@ int pm_runtime_force_suspend(struct devi
>         return 0;
>
>  err:
> -       pm_runtime_enable(dev);
> +       pm_runtime_relinquish(dev);
>         return ret;
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pm_runtime_force_suspend);
> @@ -1854,7 +1925,7 @@ int pm_runtime_force_resume(struct devic
>         int (*callback)(struct device *);
>         int ret = 0;
>
> -       if (!pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev) || !dev->power.needs_force_resume)
> +       if (!dev->power.already_suspended || !dev->power.needs_force_resume)
>                 goto out;
>
>         /*
> @@ -1874,7 +1945,7 @@ int pm_runtime_force_resume(struct devic
>         pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(dev);
>  out:
>         dev->power.needs_force_resume = 0;
> -       pm_runtime_enable(dev);
> +       pm_runtime_relinquish(dev);
>         return ret;
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pm_runtime_force_resume);
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/base/power/main.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/base/power/main.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/base/power/main.c
> @@ -809,7 +809,7 @@ Skip:
>  Out:
>         TRACE_RESUME(error);
>
> -       pm_runtime_enable(dev);
> +       pm_runtime_relinquish(dev);
>         complete_all(&dev->power.completion);
>         return error;
>  }
> @@ -907,8 +907,8 @@ static int device_resume(struct device *
>                 goto Complete;
>
>         if (dev->power.direct_complete) {
> -               /* Match the pm_runtime_disable() in __device_suspend(). */
> -               pm_runtime_enable(dev);
> +               /* Match the pm_runtime_restrict() in __device_suspend(). */
> +               pm_runtime_relinquish(dev);
>                 goto Complete;
>         }
>
> @@ -1392,7 +1392,7 @@ static int __device_suspend_late(struct
>         TRACE_DEVICE(dev);
>         TRACE_SUSPEND(0);
>
> -       __pm_runtime_disable(dev, false);
> +       pm_runtime_restrain(dev);
>
>         dpm_wait_for_subordinate(dev, async);
>
> @@ -1627,9 +1627,9 @@ static int __device_suspend(struct devic
>          * callbacks for it.
>          *
>          * If the system-wide suspend callbacks below change the configuration
> -        * of the device, they must disable runtime PM for it or otherwise
> -        * ensure that its runtime-resume callbacks will not be confused by that
> -        * change in case they are invoked going forward.
> +        * of the device, they must ensure that its runtime-resume callbacks
> +        * will not be confused by that change in case they are invoked going
> +        * forward.
>          */
>         pm_runtime_barrier(dev);
>
> @@ -1648,13 +1648,13 @@ static int __device_suspend(struct devic
>
>         if (dev->power.direct_complete) {
>                 if (pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev)) {
> -                       pm_runtime_disable(dev);
> +                       pm_runtime_restrain(dev);
>                         if (pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev)) {
>                                 pm_dev_dbg(dev, state, "direct-complete ");
>                                 goto Complete;
>                         }
>
> -                       pm_runtime_enable(dev);
> +                       pm_runtime_relinquish(dev);
>                 }
>                 dev->power.direct_complete = false;
>         }
>
>
>

Kind regards
Uffe

Powered by blists - more mailing lists