Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] PM: runtime: Do not call __rpm_callback() from rpm_idle()
From: Adrian Hunter
Date: Mon Dec 05 2022 - 02:45:23 EST
On 2/12/22 16:30, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Calling __rpm_callback() from rpm_idle() after adding device links
> support to the former is a clear mistake.
>
> Not only it causes rpm_idle() to carry out unnecessary actions, but it
> is also against the assumption regarding the stability of PM-runtime
> status accross __rpm_callback() invocations, because rpm_suspend() and
accross -> across
> rpm_resume() may run in parallel with __rpm_callback() when it is called
> by rpm_idle() and the device's PM-runtime status can be updated by any
> of them.
>
> Fixes: 21d5c57b3726 ("PM / runtime: Use device links")
Reviewed-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/base/power/runtime.c | 12 +++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> @@ -484,7 +484,17 @@ static int rpm_idle(struct device *dev,
>
> dev->power.idle_notification = true;
>
> - retval = __rpm_callback(callback, dev);
> + if (dev->power.irq_safe)
> + spin_unlock(&dev->power.lock);
> + else
> + spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
> +
> + retval = callback(dev);
> +
> + if (dev->power.irq_safe)
> + spin_lock(&dev->power.lock);
> + else
> + spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
>
> dev->power.idle_notification = false;
> wake_up_all(&dev->power.wait_queue);
>
>
>