Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0j+NOmatva7zf6Pet9ecv3qLyrMBV2-DG86r8eaW=aSJg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Dec 2021 14:49:12 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        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

On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 10:02 AM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 at 18:26, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 5:41 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 at 14:02, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 12:58 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 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?
> > > >
> > > > The problem is that disable_depth > 0 may very well mean that runtime
> > > > PM has not been enabled at all for the given device which IMO is a
> > > > problem.
> > > >
> > > > As it stands, it is necessary to make assumptions, like disable_depth
> > > > == 1 meaning that runtime PM is really enabled, but the PM core has
> > > > disabled it temporarily, which is somewhat questionable.
> > > >
> > > > Another problem with disabling is that it causes rpm_resume() to fail
> > > > even if the status is RPM_ACTIVE and it has to do that exactly because
> > > > it cannot know why runtime PM has been disabled.  If it has never been
> > > > enabled, rpm_resume() must fail, but if it has been disabled
> > > > temporarily, rpm_resume() may return 1 when the status is RPM_ACTIVE.
> > > >
> > > > The new count allows the "enabled in general, but temporarily disabled
> > > > at the moment" to be handled cleanly.
> > >
> > > My overall comment is that I fail to understand why we need to
> > > distinguish between these two cases. To me, it shouldn't really
> > > matter, *why* runtime PM is (or have been) disabled for the device.
> >
> > It matters if you want to trust the status, because "disabled" means
> > "the status doesn't matter".
>
> Well, that doesn't really match how the runtime PM interface is being
> used today.

Well, I clearly disagree.

> For example, we have a whole bunch of helper functions, allowing us to
> update and check the runtime PM state of the device, even when the
> disable_depth > 0. Some functions, like pm_runtime_set_active() for
> example, even take parents and device-links into account.

That's true, but that's for a purpose.

If runtime PM becomes enabled after using pm_runtime_set_active(), the
status should better be consistent with the settings of the parent
etc.

> >
> > If you want the status to stay meaningful, but prevent callbacks from
> > running, you need something else.
> >
> > > The important point is that the default state for a device is
> > > RPM_SUSPENDED and someone has moved into RPM_ACTIVE, for whatever
> > > reason. That should be sufficient to allow rpm_resume() to return '1'
> > > when disable_depth > 0, shouldn't it?
> >
> > No, because there is no rule by which the status of devices with
> > PM-runtime disabled must be RPM_SUSPENDED.
>
> That's not what I was trying to say.
>
> The initial/default runtime PM state for a device is RPM_SUSPENDED,
> which is being set in pm_runtime_init(). Although, I agree that it
> can't be trusted that this state actually reflects the state of the
> HW, it's still a valid state for the device from a runtime PM point of
> view.

No, it is not.  It's just the default.

> However, and more importantly, if the state has moved to RPM_ACTIVE,
> someone must have deliberately moved the device into that state.

Sure, but it cannot be regarded as an indication on whether or not
runtime PM is supported and has ever been enabled for the given
device.

Again, there is no rule regarding the status value for devices with
runtime PM disabled, either way.

> For this reason, I believe it seems reasonable to trust it, both from HW
> point of view, but definitely also from a runtime PM point of view. If
> not, then what should we do?

Trust it only when runtime PM is enabled, ie. dev->power.disable_depth == 0.

That's exactly the reason why pm_runtime_suspended() returns false if
runtime PM is disabled for the target device and if
pm_runtime_suspended() is called during system-wide suspend and
resume, it is not clear how to interpret its return value.

If it returns true outside the system suspend-resume code path, that
means "runtime PM has been enabled and the device has been
runtime-suspended" and I want it to mean exactly the same thing during
system-wide suspend and resume, so people don't need to wonder about
the context in which the code is running.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists