On 16/03/21 12:22 am, Asutosh Das (asd) wrote:

On 3/14/2021 1:11 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote:

quoted

On 10/03/21 5:04 am, Asutosh Das (asd) wrote:

quoted

On 3/9/2021 7:56 AM, Asutosh Das (asd) wrote:

quoted

On 3/8/2021 9:17 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 5:21 PM Rafael J. Wysocki [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 5:17 PM Alan Stern [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 06:54:24PM -0800, Asutosh Das (asd) wrote:

quoted

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.

quoted

quoted

RPM_ACTIVE, but the supplier suspends successfully nevertheless?

quoted

quoted

[   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/@Alan - 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?

Another outstanding issue that comes to mind, is to ensure
hba->sdev_ufs_device does not runtime suspend before it is probed.
I suggest changing ufshcd_slave_configure() so it does not set
sdev->rpm_autosuspend for hba->sdev_ufs_device, and instead do
pm_runtime_allow / pm_runtime_forbid() in ufshcd_wl_probe() /
ufshcd_wl_remove() respectively.

However we still want to stop hba->sdev_ufs_device runtime
suspending while consumers are being added.  With that in mind,
I would expect pm_runtime_get_noresume(&hba->sdev_ufs_device->sdev_gendev)
in ufshcd_scsi_add_wlus() to come *before*
ufshcd_blk_pm_runtime_init(hba->sdev_ufs_device).  In fact, it would
be more logical to make it, pm_runtime_get_sync() since we require
hba->sdev_ufs_device to be active at that point.

Hi Adrian,
I think the v11 that I pushed can handle this.
runtime-suspend is forbidden at probe and is re-enabled after probe is done. Please take a look and let me know if I'm missing something.

If the PM APIs are being used correctly, the usage and active
counts should never be wrong.  If they were, then that would
be an issue for the PM framework.

However, it is hard to tell what the issues are until all the
UFS driver changes have been completed, such as the ones I
suggested above above.

v11 could be hiding issues rather than fixing them.

quoted

quoted

Since the supplier has 0 auto-suspend delay, it now suspends!


Context [T1]
Call trace:
dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1d4
show_stack+0x18/0x24
dump_stack+0xc4/0x144
__pm_runtime_idle+0xb4/0x184
scsi_autopm_put_device+0x18/0x24
scsi_sysfs_add_sdev+0x26c/0x278
scsi_probe_and_add_lun+0xbac/0xd48
__scsi_scan_target+0x38c/0x510
scsi_scan_host_selected+0x14c/0x1e4
scsi_scan_host+0x1e0/0x228
ufshcd_async_scan+0x39c/0x408
async_run_entry_fn+0x48/0x128
process_one_work+0x1f0/0x470
worker_thread+0x26c/0x4c8
kthread+0x13c/0x320
ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18


Context [T2]
Call trace:
dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1d4
show_stack+0x18/0x24
dump_stack+0xc4/0x144
rpm_get_suppliers+0x48/0x1ac
__rpm_callback+0x58/0x12c
rpm_resume+0x3a4/0x618
__pm_runtime_resume+0x50/0x80
scsi_autopm_get_device+0x20/0x54
sd_probe+0x40/0x3d0
really_probe+0x1bc/0x4a0
driver_probe_device+0x84/0xf0
__device_attach_driver+0x114/0x138
bus_for_each_drv+0x84/0xd0
__device_attach_async_helper+0x7c/0xf0
async_run_entry_fn+0x48/0x128
process_one_work+0x1f0/0x470
worker_thread+0x26c/0x4c8
kthread+0x13c/0x320
ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18

Below prints show how link->rpm_active becomes 1 for sd 0:0:0:4
[    7.574654][  T212] Call trace:
[    7.574657][  T212]  dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1d4
[    7.574661][  T212]  show_stack+0x18/0x24
[    7.574665][  T212]  dump_stack+0xc4/0x144
[    7.574668][  T212]  __pm_runtime_idle+0xb4/0x184
[    7.574671][  T212]  scsi_autopm_put_device+0x18/0x24
[    7.574675][  T212]  sd_probe+0x314/0x3d0
[    7.574677][  T212]  really_probe+0x1bc/0x4a0
[    7.574680][  T212]  driver_probe_device+0x84/0xf0
[    7.574683][  T212]  __device_attach_driver+0x114/0x138
[    7.574686][  T212]  bus_for_each_drv+0x84/0xd0
[    7.574689][  T212]  __device_attach_async_helper+0x7c/0xf0
[    7.574692][  T212]  async_run_entry_fn+0x48/0x128
[    7.574695][  T212]  process_one_work+0x1f0/0x470
[    7.574698][  T212]  worker_thread+0x26c/0x4c8
[    7.574700][  T212]  kthread+0x13c/0x320
[    7.574703][  T212]  ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
[    7.574706][  T212] sd 0:0:0:4: scsi_runtime_idle
[    7.574712][  T212] sd 0:0:0:4: __pm_runtime_idle: aft: [UFSDBG]: pwr.timer_autosuspends: 1 pwr.request_pending: 0 retval: -16 pwr.request: 0 usage_count: 0 rpm_status: 0 link-rpm_active:2
[    7.574715][  T212] sd 0:0:0:4: sd_probe: [UFSDBG]: Exit
[    7.574738][  T212] sd 0:0:0:4: __pm_runtime_idle: b4: [UFSDBG]: pwr.request: 0 usage_count: 0 rpm_status: 0 link-rpm_active:2

[    7.574752][  T212] Workqueue: events_unbound async_run_entry_fn
[    7.574754][  T212] Call trace:
[    7.574758][  T212]  dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1d4
[    7.574761][  T212]  show_stack+0x18/0x24
[    7.574765][  T212]  dump_stack+0xc4/0x144
[    7.574767][  T212]  __pm_runtime_idle+0xb4/0x184
[    7.574770][  T212]  driver_probe_device+0x94/0xf0
[    7.574773][  T212]  __device_attach_driver+0x114/0x138
[    7.574775][  T212]  bus_for_each_drv+0x84/0xd0
[    7.574778][  T212]  __device_attach_async_helper+0x7c/0xf0
[    7.574781][  T212]  async_run_entry_fn+0x48/0x128
[    7.574783][  T212]  process_one_work+0x1f0/0x470
[    7.574786][  T212]  worker_thread+0x26c/0x4c8
[    7.574788][  T212]  kthread+0x13c/0x320
[    7.574791][  T212]  ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
[    7.574848][   T80] sd 0:0:0:4: scsi_runtime_idle
[    7.574858][  T212] sd 0:0:0:4: __pm_runtime_idle: aft: [UFSDBG]: pwr.timer_autosuspends: 1 pwr.request_pending: 0 retval: 0 pwr.request: 0 usage_count: 0 rpm_status: 0 link-rpm_active:2
[    7.574863][  T212] sd 0:0:0:4: pm_runtime_put_suppliers: [UFSDBG]: rpm_status: 0 link-rpm_active:1
[    7.574866][  T212] sd 0:0:0:4: async probe completed
[    7.574870][  T212] sd 0:0:0:4: __pm_runtime_idle: b4: [UFSDBG]: pwr.request: 0 usage_count: 0 rpm_status: 0 link-rpm_active:1


So, from the above it looks like when async probe is enabled this is a possibility.

I don't see a way around this. Please let me know if you (@Alan/@Bart/@Adrian) have any thoughts on this.

Thanks,
-asd