Re: [PATCH] PM: runtime: Allow rpm_resume() to succeed when runtime PM is disabled

[Ulf Hansson]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 14:30, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 1:20 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 at 10:27, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 29 Oct 2021 at 20:27, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 12:20 AM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 at 16:33, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 12:55:43PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 at 04:02, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 12:26:26AM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > During system suspend, the PM core sets dev->power.is_suspended for the
> > > > > > > > > device that is being suspended. This flag is also being used in
> > > > > > > > > rpm_resume(), to allow it to succeed by returning 1, assuming that runtime
> > > > > > > > > PM has been disabled and the runtime PM status is RPM_ACTIVE, for the
> > > > > > > > > device.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > To make this behaviour a bit more useful, let's drop the check for the
> > > > > > > > > dev->power.is_suspended flag in rpm_resume(), as it doesn't really need to
> > > > > > > > > be limited to this anyway.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > >  drivers/base/power/runtime.c | 4 ++--
> > > > > > > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> > > > > > > > > index ec94049442b9..fadc278e3a66 100644
> > > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> > > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> > > > > > > > > @@ -742,8 +742,8 @@ static int rpm_resume(struct device *dev, int rpmflags)
> > > > > > > > >   repeat:
> > > > > > > > >       if (dev->power.runtime_error)
> > > > > > > > >               retval = -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > > > -     else if (dev->power.disable_depth == 1 && dev->power.is_suspended
> > > > > > > > > -         && dev->power.runtime_status == RPM_ACTIVE)
> > > > > > > > > +     else if (dev->power.disable_depth > 0 &&
> > > > > > > > > +             dev->power.runtime_status == RPM_ACTIVE)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > IIRC there was a good reason why the original code checked for
> > > > > > > > disable_depth == 1 rather than > 0.  But I don't remember exactly what
> > > > > > > > the reason was.  Maybe it had something to do with the fact that during
> > > > > > > > a system sleep __device_suspend_late calls __pm_runtime_disable, and the
> > > > > > > > code was checking that there were no other disables in effect.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The check was introduced in the below commit:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Commit 6f3c77b040fc
> > > > > > > Author: Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxx>
> > > > > > > Date:   Fri Sep 21 22:47:34 2012 +0000
> > > > > > > PM / Runtime: let rpm_resume() succeed if RPM_ACTIVE, even when disabled, v2
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By reading the commit message it's pretty clear to me that the check
> > > > > > > was added to cover only one specific use case, during system suspend.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That is, that a driver may want to call pm_runtime_get_sync() from a
> > > > > > > late/noirq callback (when the PM core has disabled runtime PM), to
> > > > > > > understand whether the device is still powered on and accessible.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is
> > > > > > > > related to the documented behavior of rpm_resume (it's supposed to fail
> > > > > > > > with -EACCES if the device is disabled for runtime PM, no matter what
> > > > > > > > power state the device is in).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That probably is also the explanation for why dev->power.is_suspended
> > > > > > > > gets checked: It's how the code tells whether a system sleep is in
> > > > > > > > progress.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, you are certainly correct about the current behaviour. It's there
> > > > > > > for a reason.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On the other hand I would be greatly surprised if this change would
> > > > > > > cause any issues. Of course, I can't make guarantees, but I am, of
> > > > > > > course, willing to help to fix problems if those happen.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As a matter of fact, I think the current behaviour looks quite
> > > > > > > inconsistent, as it depends on whether the device is being system
> > > > > > > suspended.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Moreover, for syscore devices (dev->power.syscore is set for them),
> > > > > > > the PM core doesn't set the "is_suspended" flag. Those can benefit
> > > > > > > from a common behaviour.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Finally, I think the "is_suspended" flag actually needs to be
> > > > > > > protected by a lock when set by the PM core, as it's being used in two
> > > > > > > separate execution paths. Although, rather than adding a lock for
> > > > > > > protection, we can just rely on the "disable_depth" in rpm_resume().
> > > > > > > It would be easier and makes the behaviour consistent too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As long as is_suspended isn't _written_ in two separate execution paths,
> > > > > > we're probably okay without a lock -- provided the code doesn't mind
> > > > > > getting an indefinite result when a read races with a write.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, indefinite doesn't sound very good to me for these cases, even
> > > > > if it most likely never will happen.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So overall, I suspect this change should not be made.  But some other
> > > > > > > > improvement (like a nice comment) might be in order.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alan Stern
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for reviewing!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You're welcome.  Whatever you eventually decide to do should be okay
> > > > > > with me.  I just wanted to make sure that you understood the deeper
> > > > > > issue here and had given it some thought.  For example, it may turn out
> > > > > > that you can resolve matters simply by updating the documentation.
> > > > >
> > > > > I observed the issue on cpuidle-psci. The devices it operates upon are
> > > > > assigned as syscore devices and these are hooked up to a genpd.
> > > > >
> > > > > A call to pm_runtime_get_sync() can happen even after the PM core has
> > > > > disabled runtime PM in the "late" phase. So the error code is received
> > > > > for these real use-cases.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, as we currently don't check the return value of
> > > > > pm_runtime_get_sync() in cpuidle-psci, it's not a big deal. But it
> > > > > certainly seems worth fixing in my opinion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's see if Rafael has some thoughts around this.
> > > >
> > > > 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? :-)

>
> Stay tuned.

Cool, thanks!

Kind regards
Uffe