Re: Query related to usage of cpufreq_suspend() & cpufreq_resume

[Prateek Sood]

On 02/02/2018 06:49 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 1:53 PM, Prateek Sood <prsood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 02/02/2018 05:18 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Friday, February 2, 2018 12:41:58 PM CET Prateek Sood wrote:
>>>> Hi Viresh,
>>>>
>>>> One scenario is there where a kernel panic is observed in
>>>> cpufreq during suspend/resume.
>>>>
>>>> pm_suspend()
>>>>   suspend_devices_and_enter()
>>>>     dpm_suspend_start()
>>>>       dpm_prepare()
>>>>
>>>> Failure in dpm_prepare() happend with following dmesg:
>>>>
>>>> [ 3746.316062] PM: Device xyz not prepared for power transition: code -16
>>>> [ 3746.316071] PM: Some devices failed to suspend, or early wake event detected
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> pm_suspend()
>>>>   suspend_devices_and_enter()
>>>>     dpm_suspend_start()
>>>>       dpm_prepare() //failed
>>>>     dpm_resume_end()
>>>>       dpm_resume()
>>>>         cpufreq_resume()
>>>>           cpufreq_start_governor()
>>>>             sugov_start()
>>>>               cpufreq_add_update_util_hook()
>>>>
>>>> After failure in dpm_prepare(), dpm_resume() called
>>>> cpufreq_resume(). Corresponding cpufreq_suspend() was not
>>>> called due to failure of dpm_prepare().
>>>>
>>>> This resulted in WARN_ON(per_cpu(cpufreq_update_util_data, cpu))
>>>> in cpufreq_add_update_util_hook() and cpufreq_add_update_util_hook->func
>>>> being inconsistent state. It caused crash in scheduler.
>>>>
>>>> Following are some of the ways to mitigate this issue. Could
>>>> you please provide feedback on below two approaches or suugest
>>>> a better way to fix this problem.
>>>>
>>>> -----------------------8<------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Co-developed-by: Gaurav Kohli <gkohli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Gaurav Kohli <gkohli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Prateek Sood <prsood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/main.c b/drivers/base/power/main.c
>>>> index 02a497e..732e5a2 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/base/power/main.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/base/power/main.c
>>>> @@ -1038,6 +1038,7 @@ void dpm_resume(pm_message_t state)
>>>>  {
>>>>         struct device *dev;
>>>>         ktime_t starttime = ktime_get();
>>>> +       bool valid_resume = false;
>>>>
>>>>         trace_suspend_resume(TPS("dpm_resume"), state.event, true);
>>>>         might_sleep();
>>>> @@ -1055,6 +1056,7 @@ void dpm_resume(pm_message_t state)
>>>>         }
>>>>
>>>>         while (!list_empty(&dpm_suspended_list)) {
>>>> +               valid_resume = true;
>>>>                 dev = to_device(dpm_suspended_list.next);
>>>>                 get_device(dev);
>>>>                 if (!is_async(dev)) {
>>>> @@ -1080,7 +1082,8 @@ void dpm_resume(pm_message_t state)
>>>>         async_synchronize_full();
>>>>         dpm_show_time(starttime, state, 0, NULL);
>>>>
>>>> -       cpufreq_resume();
>>>> +       if (valid_resume)
>>>> +               cpufreq_resume();
>>>>         trace_suspend_resume(TPS("dpm_resume"), state.event, false);
>>>>  }
>>>>
>>>> --------------------8<--------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Prateek Sood <prsood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>>> index 421f318..439eab8 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>>> @@ -1648,7 +1648,7 @@ void cpufreq_suspend(void)
>>>>  {
>>>>         struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
>>>>
>>>> -       if (!cpufreq_driver)
>>>> +       if (!cpufreq_driver || cpufreq_suspended)
>>>>                 return;
>>>>
>>>>         if (!has_target() && !cpufreq_driver->suspend)
>>>> @@ -1683,7 +1683,7 @@ void cpufreq_resume(void)
>>>>         struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
>>>>         int ret;
>>>>
>>>> -       if (!cpufreq_driver)
>>>> +       if (!cpufreq_driver || !cpufreq_suspended)
>>>>                 return;
>>>>
>>>>         cpufreq_suspended = false;
>>>
>>> Since we have cpufreq_suspended already, the second one is better.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks Rafael for the inputs, I will send a formal patch.
> 
> Bo Yan has posted something really similar already, however:
> 
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10181101/
> 
> so I would prefer to apply a new version of that one with the latest
> comment taken into account:
> 
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10183075/
> 
> for the credit to go to the first submitter.
> 

Thanks for the information Rafael. 

I believe safety check in both cpufreq_suspend() and
cpufreq_resume() would be a good thing to have. 


-- 
Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation
Center, Inc., is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation
Collaborative Project