Re: [PATCH] pci: Don't call resume callback for nearly bound devices
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date: 2021-11-09 18:59:01
Also in:
linux-i2c, linux-pci, lkml
On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 7:52 PM Rafael J. Wysocki [off-list ref] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 7:12 PM Bjorn Helgaas [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 06:18:18PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:quoted
On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 7:59 AM Uwe Kleine-König [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 08:56:19PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:quoted
[+cc Greg: new device_is_bound() use]ack, that's what I would have suggested now, too.quoted
On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 10:22:26PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:quoted
pci_pm_runtime_resume() exits early when the device to resume isn't bound yet: if (!to_pci_driver(dev->driver)) return 0; This however isn't true when the device currently probes and local_pci_probe() calls pm_runtime_get_sync() because then the driver core already setup dev->driver. As a result the driver's resume callback is called before the driver's probe function is called and so more often than not required driver data isn't setup yet. So replace the check for the device being unbound by a check that only becomes true after .probe() succeeded.I like the fact that this patch is short and simple. But there are 30+ users of to_pci_driver(). This patch asserts that *one* of them, pci_pm_runtime_resume(), is special and needs to test device_is_bound() instead of using to_pci_driver().Maybe for the other locations using device_is_bound(&pdev->dev) instead of to_pci_driver(pdev) != NULL would be nice, too? I have another doubt: device_is_bound() should (according to its kernel-doc) be called with the device lock held. For the call stack that is (maybe) fixed here, the lock is held (by __device_attach). We probably should check if the lock is also held for the other calls of pci_pm_runtime_resume(). Hmm, the device lock is a mutex, the pm functions might be called in atomic context, right?quoted
It's special because the current PM implementation calls it via pm_runtime_get_sync() before the driver's .probe() method. That connection is a little bit obscure and fragile. What if the PM implementation changes?Maybe a saver bet would be to not use pm_runtime_get_sync() in local_pci_probe()?Yes, in principle it might be replaced with pm_runtime_get_noresume(). In theory, that may be problematic if a device is put into a low-power state on remove and then the driver is bound again to it.quoted
I wonder if the same problem exists on remove, i.e. pci_device_remove() calls pm_runtime_put_sync() after the driver's .remove() callback was called.If it is called after ->remove() and before clearing the device's driver pointer, then yes.Yes, that is the case: pci_device_remove if (drv->remove) { pm_runtime_get_sync drv->remove() # <-- driver ->remove() method pm_runtime_put_noidle } ... pm_runtime_put_sync # <-- after ->remove() So pm_runtime_put_sync() is called after drv->remove(), and it may call drv->pm->runtime_idle(). I think the driver may not expect this.quoted
If this is turned into pm_runtime_put_noidle(), all should work.pci_device_remove() already calls pm_runtime_put_noidle() immediately after calling the driver ->remove() method. Are you saying we should do this, which means pci_device_remove() would call pm_runtime_put_noidle() twice?Well, they are both needed to keep the PM-runtime reference counting in balance. This still has an issue, though, because user space would be able to trigger a runtime suspend via sysfs after we've dropped the last reference to the device in pci_device_remove(). So instead, we can drop the pm_runtime_get_sync() and pm_runtime_put_sync() from local_pci_probe() and pci_device_remove(), respectively, and add pm_runtine_get_noresume() to pci_pm_init(), which will prevent PM-runtime from touching the device until it has a driver that supports PM-runtime. We'll lose the theoretical ability to put unbound devices into D3 this way, but we learned some time ago that this isn't safe in all cases anyway.
IOW, something like this (untested and most likely white-space-damaged). --- drivers/pci/pci-driver.c | 13 ------------- drivers/pci/pci.c | 7 +++++++ 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) Index: linux-pm/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c ===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
+++ linux-pm/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c@@ -309,16 +309,6 @@ static long local_pci_probe(void *_ddi) struct device *dev = &pci_dev->dev; int rc; - /* - * Unbound PCI devices are always put in D0, regardless of - * runtime PM status. During probe, the device is set to - * active and the usage count is incremented. If the driver - * supports runtime PM, it should call pm_runtime_put_noidle(), - * or any other runtime PM helper function decrementing the usage - * count, in its probe routine and pm_runtime_get_noresume() in - * its remove routine. - */ - pm_runtime_get_sync(dev); pci_dev->driver = pci_drv; rc = pci_drv->probe(pci_dev, ddi->id); if (!rc)
@@ -470,9 +460,6 @@ static void pci_device_remove(struct dev pci_iov_remove(pci_dev); } - /* Undo the runtime PM settings in local_pci_probe() */ - pm_runtime_put_sync(dev); - /* * If the device is still on, set the power state as "unknown", * since it might change by the next time we load the driver.
Index: linux-pm/drivers/pci/pci.c ===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/drivers/pci/pci.c
+++ linux-pm/drivers/pci/pci.c@@ -3048,7 +3048,14 @@ void pci_pm_init(struct pci_dev *dev) u16 pmc; pm_runtime_forbid(&dev->dev); + /* + * Unbound PCI devices are always put in D0. If the driver supports + * runtime PM, it should call pm_runtime_put_noidle(), or any other + * runtime PM helper function decrementing the usage count, in its + * probe routine and pm_runtime_get_noresume() in its remove routine. + */ pm_runtime_set_active(&dev->dev); + pm_runtime_get_noresume(&dev->dev); pm_runtime_enable(&dev->dev); device_enable_async_suspend(&dev->dev); dev->wakeup_prepared = false;