On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 6:29 PM Ulf Hansson [off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 at 17:46, Rafael J. Wysocki [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 5:09 PM Rafael J. Wysocki [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 4:05 PM Ulf Hansson [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 at 15:45, Rafael J. Wysocki [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 1:49 PM Ulf Hansson [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 20:18, Rafael J. Wysocki [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 4:44 PM Ulf Hansson [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

In the cpuidle-psci case, runtime PM in combination with the generic PM
domain (genpd), may be used when entering/exiting an idlestate. More
precisely, genpd relies on runtime PM to be enabled for the attached device
(in this case it belongs to a CPU), to properly manage the reference
counting of its PM domain.

This works fine most of the time, but during system suspend in the
dpm_suspend_late() phase, the PM core disables runtime PM for all devices.
Beyond this point and until runtime PM becomes re-enabled in the
dpm_resume_early() phase, calls to pm_runtime_get|put*() will fail.

To make sure the reference counting in genpd becomes correct, we need to
prevent cpuidle-psci from using runtime PM when it has been disabled for
the device. Therefore, let's move the call to cpuidle_pause() from
dpm_suspend_noirq() to dpm_suspend_late() - and cpuidle_resume() from
dpm_resume_noirq() into dpm_resume_early().

Diagnosed-by: Maulik Shah [off-list ref]
Suggested-by: Maulik Shah <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <redacted>
---
 drivers/base/power/main.c | 6 ++----
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/base/power/main.c b/drivers/base/power/main.c
index cbea78e79f3d..1c753b651272 100644
--- a/drivers/base/power/main.c
+++ b/drivers/base/power/main.c

@@ -747,8 +747,6 @@ void dpm_resume_noirq(pm_message_t state)

        resume_device_irqs();
        device_wakeup_disarm_wake_irqs();
-
-       cpuidle_resume();
 }

 /**

@@ -870,6 +868,7 @@ void dpm_resume_early(pm_message_t state)
        }
        mutex_unlock(&dpm_list_mtx);
        async_synchronize_full();
+       cpuidle_resume();
        dpm_show_time(starttime, state, 0, "early");
        trace_suspend_resume(TPS("dpm_resume_early"), state.event, false);
 }

@@ -1336,8 +1335,6 @@ int dpm_suspend_noirq(pm_message_t state)
 {
        int ret;

-       cpuidle_pause();
-
        device_wakeup_arm_wake_irqs();
        suspend_device_irqs();

@@ -1467,6 +1464,7 @@ int dpm_suspend_late(pm_message_t state)
        int error = 0;

        trace_suspend_resume(TPS("dpm_suspend_late"), state.event, true);
+       cpuidle_pause();
        mutex_lock(&dpm_list_mtx);
        pm_transition = state;
        async_error = 0;
--

Well, this is somewhat heavy-handed and it affects even the systems
that don't really need to pause cpuidle at all in the suspend path.

Yes, I agree.

Although, I am not really changing the behaviour in regards to this.
cpuidle_pause() is already being called in dpm_suspend_noirq(), for
everybody today.

Yes, it is, but pausing it earlier will cause more energy to be spent,
potentially.

That said, there are not too many users of suspend_late callbacks in
the tree, so it may not matter too much.

quoted

quoted

Also, IIUC you don't need to pause cpuidle completely, but make it
temporarily avoid idle states potentially affected by this issue.  An
additional CPUIDLE_STATE_DISABLED_ flag could be used for that I
suppose and it could be set via cpuidle_suspend() called from the core
next to cpufreq_suspend().

cpuidle_suspend() would then need to go and fetch the cpuidle driver
instance, which in some cases is one driver per CPU. Doesn't that get
rather messy?

Per-CPU variables are used for that, so it is quite straightforward.

quoted

Additionally, since find_deepest_state() is being called for
cpuidle_enter_s2idle() too, we would need to treat the new
CPUIDLE_STATE_DISABLED_ flag in a special way, right?

No, it already checks "disabled".

Yes, but that would be wrong.

Hmmm.

quoted

The use case I want to support, for cpuidle-psci, is to allow all idle
states in suspend-to-idle,

So does PM-runtime work in suspend-to-idle?  How?

quoted

but prevent those that rely on runtime PM
(after it has been disabled) for the regular idle path.

Do you have a special suspend-to-idle handling of those states that
doesn't require PM-runtime?

Regardless, pausing cpuidle in the suspend-to-idle path simply doesn't
make sense at all, so this needs to be taken care of in the first
place.

Right, I do agree, don't get me wrong. But, do we really want to treat
s2-to-idle differently, compared to s2-to-ram in regards to this?

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to let cpuidle drivers to opt-out for
cpuidle_pause|resume(), no matter whether it's for s2-to-idle or
s2-to-ram?

I don't think so.

Suspend-to-idle resume cpuidle after pausing it which is just plain
confusing and waste of energy and the fact that the system-wide
suspend flow interferes with using PM-runtime for implementing cpuidle
callbacks at the low level really is an orthogonal problem.

quoted

The problem with PM-runtime being unavailable after dpm_suspend()
needs to be addressed in a different way IMO, because it only affects
one specific use case.

It's one specific case so far, but we have the riscv driver on its
way, which would suffer from the same problem.

So perhaps they should be advised about this issue.

Anyway, an option is to figure out what platforms and cpuidle drivers,
that really needs cpuidle_pause|resume() at this point and make an
opt-in solution instead.

None of them need to pause cpuidle for suspend-to-idle AFAICS.

Some may want it in the non-s2idle suspend path, but I'm not sure
about the exact point where cpuidle needs to be paused in this case.
Possibly before offlining the nonboot CPUs.

This could then be used by runtime PM based
cpuidle drivers as well. Would that be a way forward?

The PM-runtime case should be addressed directly IMO, we only need to
figure out how to do that.

I'm wondering how you are dealing with the case when user space
prevents pd_dev from suspending via sysfs, for that matter.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel