On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 at 18:26, Rafael J. Wysocki [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 5:41 PM Ulf Hansson [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 at 14:02, Rafael J. Wysocki [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 12:58 PM Ulf Hansson [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

[...]

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

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.

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.

If you want the status to stay meaningful, but prevent callbacks from
running, you need something else.

quoted

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.

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

[...]

Kind regards
Uffe