Date:   Fri, 1 Jul 2022 18:21:55 +0800
From:   Peter Wang <peter.wang@...iatek.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
CC:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] PM-runtime: Check supplier_preactivated before release
 supplier


On 7/1/22 12:28 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 5:19 PM Peter Wang <peter.wang@...iatek.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 6/30/22 10:47 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 4:26 PM Peter Wang <peter.wang@...iatek.com> wrote:
>>>> On 6/30/22 12:01 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>> [Add CCs to linix-pm, LKML and Greg]
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 5:32:00 PM CEST Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 4:47 PM Peter Wang <peter.wang@...iatek.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/29/22 9:22 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 5:02 AM Peter Wang <peter.wang@...iatek.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/28/22 11:54 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 3:53 AM Peter Wang <peter.wang@...iatek.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/28/22 3:00 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 2:08 PM <peter.wang@...iatek.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Peter Wang <peter.wang@...iatek.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> With divice link of DL_FLAG_PM_RUNTIME, if consumer call pm_runtime_get_suppliers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to prevent supplier enter suspend, pm_runtime_release_supplier should
>>>>>>>>>>>>> check supplier_preactivated before let supplier enter suspend.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>>>>>> because supplier_preactivated is true means supplier cannot enter
>>>>>>>>>>> suspend, right?
>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't mean that.
>>>>>>>>> Hi Rafael,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> if supplier_preactivated is true, means someone call
>>>>>>>>> pm_runtime_get_suppliers and
>>>>>>>>> before pm_runtime_put_suppliers right? This section suppliers should not
>>>>>>>>> enter suspend.
>>>>>>>> No, this is not how this is expected to work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First off, the only caller of pm_runtime_get_suppliers() and
>>>>>>>> pm_runtime_put_suppliers() is __driver_probe_device().  Really nobody
>>>>>>>> else has any business that would require calling them.
>>>>>>> Hi Rafael,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, you are right!
>>>>>>> __driver_probe_device the only one use and just because
>>>>>>> __driver_probe_device use
>>>>>>> pm_runtime_get_suppliers cause problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Second, the role of pm_runtime_get_suppliers() is to "preactivate" the
>>>>>>>> suppliers before running probe for a consumer device and the role of
>>>>>>> the role of pm_runtime_get_suppliers() is to "preactivate" the suppliers,
>>>>>>> but suppliers may suspend immediately after preactivate right?
>>>>>>> Here is just this case. this is first racing point.
>>>>>>> Thread A: pm_runtime_get_suppliers                -> __driver_probe_device
>>>>>>> Thread B: pm_runtime_release_supplier
>>>>>>> Thread A: Run with supplier not preactivate      -> __driver_probe_device
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> pm_runtime_put_suppliers() is to do the cleanup in case the device is
>>>>>>>> left in suspend after probing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IOW, pm_runtime_get_suppliers() is to ensure that the suppliers will
>>>>>>>> be active until the probe callback takes over and the rest depends on
>>>>>>>> that callback.
>>>>>>> The problem of this racing will finally let consumer is active but
>>>>>>> supplier is suspended.
>>>>>> So it would be better to send a bug report regarding this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The link relation is broken.
>>>>>>> I know you may curious how it happened? right?
>>>>>>> Honestly, I am not sure, but I think the second racing point
>>>>>>> is rpm_get_suppliers and pm_runtime_put_suppliers(release rpm_active).
>>>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by "the racing point".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, these functions can run concurrently.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, I try to fix the first racing point and the problem is gone.
>>>>>>> It is full meet expect, and the pm runtime will work smoothly after
>>>>>>> __driver_probe_device done.
>>>>>> I'm almost sure that there is at least one scenario that would be
>>>>>> broken by this change.
>>>>> That said, the code in there may be a bit overdesigned.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the patch below help?
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     drivers/base/power/runtime.c |   14 +-------------
>>>>>     1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Index: linux-pm/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
>>>>> ===================================================================
>>>>> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
>>>>> +++ linux-pm/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
>>>>> @@ -1768,7 +1768,6 @@ void pm_runtime_get_suppliers(struct dev
>>>>>                 if (link->flags & DL_FLAG_PM_RUNTIME) {
>>>>>                         link->supplier_preactivated = true;
>>>>>                         pm_runtime_get_sync(link->supplier);
>>>>> -                     refcount_inc(&link->rpm_active);
>>>>>                 }
>>>>>
>>>>>         device_links_read_unlock(idx);
>>>>> @@ -1788,19 +1787,8 @@ void pm_runtime_put_suppliers(struct dev
>>>>>         list_for_each_entry_rcu(link, &dev->links.suppliers, c_node,
>>>>>                                 device_links_read_lock_held())
>>>>>                 if (link->supplier_preactivated) {
>>>>> -                     bool put;
>>>>> -
>>>>>                         link->supplier_preactivated = false;
>>>>> -
>>>>> -                     spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
>>>>> -
>>>>> -                     put = pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev) &&
>>>>> -                           refcount_dec_not_one(&link->rpm_active);
>>>>> -
>>>>> -                     spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
>>>>> -
>>>>> -                     if (put)
>>>>> -                             pm_runtime_put(link->supplier);
>>>>> +                     pm_runtime_put(link->supplier);
>>>>>                 }
>>>>>
>>>>>         device_links_read_unlock(idx);
>>>> Hi Rafael,
>>>>
>>>> I think this patch solve the rpm_active racing problem.
>>>> But it still have problem that
>>>> pm_runtime_get_suppliers call pm_runtime_get_sync(link->supplier)
>>>> and supplier could suspend immediately by other thread who call
>>>> pm_runtime_release_supplier.
>>> No, it won't, because pm_runtime_release_supplier() won't drop the
>>> reference on the supplier taken by pm_runtime_get_suppliers(0 after
>>> the patch.
>> Hi Rafael,
>>
>> I think pm_runtime_release_supplier will always decrese the reference
>> rpm_active count to 1 and check idle will let supplier enter suspend. Am
>> I wrong?
>>
>> Could you explain why this patch won't drop the reference?
> What matters is the supplier's PM-runtime usage counter and (with the
> patch above applied) pm_runtime_get_suppliers() bumps it up via
> pm_runtime_get_sync() and it doesn't bump up the device link's
> rpm_active count at the same time.
>
> This is important, because the number of times
> pm_runtime_release_supplier() decrements the supplier's usage counter
> is the same as the rpm_active count value at the beginning of that
> function minus 1.  Now, rpm_active is 1 initially and every time it
> gets incremented, the supplier's usage counter is also incremented.
> Combined with the observation in the previous paragraph, this means
> that after pm_runtime_get_suppliers() the value of the supplier's
> PM-runtime usage counter will always be greater than the rpm_active
> value minus 1, so pm_runtime_release_supplier() cannot decrement it
> down to zero until pm_runtime_put_suppliers() runs.

Hi Rafael,

Yes, it is very clear!
I miss this important key point that usage_count is always > rpm_active 1.
I think this patch could work.

Thanks.
Peter

Powered by blists - more mailing lists