RE: [PATCH v3] driver core: Cancel scheduled pm_runtime_idle() on device removal

[Ricky WU]

> On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 7:10 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 6:00 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 5:41 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 4:51 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 03:38:38PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 7:23 AM Kai-Heng Feng
> > > > > > <kai.heng.feng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When inserting an SD7.0 card to Realtek card reader, the card
> reader
> > > > > > > unplugs itself and morph into a NVMe device. The slot Link down on
> hot
> > > > > > > unplugged can cause the following error:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > pcieport 0000:00:1c.0: pciehp: Slot(8): Link Down
> > > > > > > BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: ffffb24d403e5010
> > > > > > > PGD 100000067 P4D 100000067 PUD 1001fe067 PMD 100d97067
> PTE 0
> > > > > > > Oops: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP PTI
> > > > > > > CPU: 3 PID: 534 Comm: kworker/3:10 Not tainted 6.4.0 #6
> > > > > > > Hardware name: To Be Filled By O.E.M. To Be Filled By
> O.E.M./H370M Pro4, BIOS P3.40 10/25/2018
> > > > > > > Workqueue: pm pm_runtime_work
> > > > > > > RIP: 0010:ioread32+0x2e/0x70
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > Call Trace:
> > > > > > >  <TASK>
> > > > > > >  ? show_regs+0x68/0x70
> > > > > > >  ? __die_body+0x20/0x70
> > > > > > >  ? __die+0x2b/0x40
> > > > > > >  ? page_fault_oops+0x160/0x480
> > > > > > >  ? search_bpf_extables+0x63/0x90
> > > > > > >  ? ioread32+0x2e/0x70
> > > > > > >  ? search_exception_tables+0x5f/0x70
> > > > > > >  ? kernelmode_fixup_or_oops+0xa2/0x120
> > > > > > >  ? __bad_area_nosemaphore+0x179/0x230
> > > > > > >  ? bad_area_nosemaphore+0x16/0x20
> > > > > > >  ? do_kern_addr_fault+0x8b/0xa0
> > > > > > >  ? exc_page_fault+0xe5/0x180
> > > > > > >  ? asm_exc_page_fault+0x27/0x30
> > > > > > >  ? ioread32+0x2e/0x70
> > > > > > >  ? rtsx_pci_write_register+0x5b/0x90 [rtsx_pci]
> > > > > > >  rtsx_set_l1off_sub+0x1c/0x30 [rtsx_pci]
> > > > > > >  rts5261_set_l1off_cfg_sub_d0+0x36/0x40 [rtsx_pci]
> > > > > > >  rtsx_pci_runtime_idle+0xc7/0x160 [rtsx_pci]
> > > > > > >  ? __pfx_pci_pm_runtime_idle+0x10/0x10
> > > > > > >  pci_pm_runtime_idle+0x34/0x70
> > > > > > >  rpm_idle+0xc4/0x2b0
> > > > > > >  pm_runtime_work+0x93/0xc0
> > > > > > >  process_one_work+0x21a/0x430
> > > > > > >  worker_thread+0x4a/0x3c0
> > > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > > > This happens because scheduled pm_runtime_idle() is not
> cancelled.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But rpm_resume() changes dev->power.request to RPM_REQ_NONE
> and if
> > > > > > pm_runtime_work() sees this, it will not run rpm_idle().
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, rpm_resume() doesn't deactivate the autosuspend timer if
> it
> > > > > > is running (see the comment in rpm_resume() regarding this), so it
> may
> > > > > > queue up a runtime PM work later.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If this is not desirable, you need to stop the autosuspend timer
> > > > > > explicitly in addition to calling pm_runtime_get_sync().
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't quite follow all this.  I think the race is between
> > > > > rtsx_pci_remove() (not resume) and rtsx_pci_runtime_idle().
> > > >
> > > > I think so too and the latter is not expected to run.
> > > >
> > > > >   rtsx_pci_remove()
> > > > >   {
> > > > >     pm_runtime_get_sync()
> > > > >     pm_runtime_forbid()
> > > > >     ...
> > > > >
> > > > > If this is an rtsx bug, what exactly should be added to
> > > > > rtsx_pci_remove()?
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there ever a case where we want any runtime PM work to happen
> > > > > during or after a driver .remove()?  If not, maybe the driver core
> > > > > should prevent that, which I think is basically what this patch does.
> > > >
> > > > No, it is not, because it doesn't actually prevent the race from
> > > > occurring, it just narrows the window quite a bit.
> > > >
> > > > It would be better to call pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend() instead
> > > > of pm_runtime_barrier().
> > > >
> > > > > If this is an rtsx driver bug, I'm concerned there may be many other
> > > > > drivers with a similar issue.  rtsx exercises this path more than most
> > > > > because the device switches between card reader and NVMe SSD using
> > > > > hotplug add/remove based on whether an SD card is inserted (see [1]).
> > > >
> > > > This is a valid concern, so it is mostly a matter of where to disable
> > > > autosuspend.
> > > >
> > > > It may be the driver core in principle, but note that it calls
> > > > ->remove() after invoking pm_runtime_put_sync(), so why would it
> > > > disable autosuspend when it allows runtime PM to race with device
> > > > removal in general?
> > > >
> > > > Another way might be to add a pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend()
> call
> > > > at the beginning of pci_device_remove().
> > > >
> > > > Or just remove the optimization in question from rpm_resume() which is
> > > > quite confusing and causes people to make assumptions that lead to
> > > > incorrect behavior in this particular case.
> > >
> > > Well, scratch this.
> > >
> > > If rpm_idle() is already running at the time rpm_resume() is called,
> > > the latter may return right away without waiting, which is incorrect.
> > >
> > > rpm_resume() needs to wait for the "idle" callback to complete, so
> > > this (again, modulo GMail-induced whitespace mangling) should help:
> > >
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/base/power/runtime.c |    6 ++++--
> > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > Index: linux-pm/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> > >
> ================================================================
> ===
> > > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> > > +++ linux-pm/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> > > @@ -798,7 +798,8 @@ static int rpm_resume(struct device *dev
> > >      }
> > >
> > >      if (dev->power.runtime_status == RPM_RESUMING ||
> > > -        dev->power.runtime_status == RPM_SUSPENDING) {
> > > +        dev->power.runtime_status == RPM_SUSPENDING ||
> > > +        dev->power.idle_notification) {
> > >          DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
> > >
> > >          if (rpmflags & (RPM_ASYNC | RPM_NOWAIT)) {
> > > @@ -826,7 +827,8 @@ static int rpm_resume(struct device *dev
> > >              prepare_to_wait(&dev->power.wait_queue, &wait,
> > >                      TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> > >              if (dev->power.runtime_status != RPM_RESUMING &&
> > > -                dev->power.runtime_status != RPM_SUSPENDING)
> > > +                dev->power.runtime_status != RPM_SUSPENDING &&
> > > +                !dev->power.idle_notification)
> > >                  break;
> > >
> > >              spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
> >
> > Well, not really.
> >
> > The problem is that rtsx_pci_runtime_idle() is not expected to be
> > running after pm_runtime_get_sync(), but the latter doesn't really
> > guarantee that.  It only guarantees that the suspend/resume callbacks
> > will not be running after it returns.
> >
> > As I said above, if the ->runtime_idle() callback is already running
> > when pm_runtime_get_sync() runs, the latter will notice that the
> > status is RPM_ACTIVE and will return right away without waiting for
> > the former to complete.  In fact, it cannot wait for it to complete,
> > because it may be called from a ->runtime_idle() callback itself (it
> > arguably does not make much sense to do that, but it is not strictly
> > forbidden).
> >
> > So whoever is providing a ->runtime_idle() callback, they need to
> > protect it from running in parallel with whatever code runs after
> > pm_runtime_get_sync().  Note that ->runtime_idle() will not start
> > after pm_runtime_get_sync(), but it may continue running then if it
> > has started earlier already.
> >
> > Calling pm_runtime_barrier() after pm_runtime_get_sync() (not before
> > it) should suffice, but once the runtime PM usage counter is dropped,
> > rpm_idle() may run again, so this is only effective until the usage
> > counter is greater than 1.  This means that
> > __device_release_driver(() is not the right place to call it, because
> > the usage counter is dropped before calling device_remove() in that
> > case.
> >
> > The PCI bus type can prevent the race between driver-provided
> > ->runtime_idle() and ->remove() from occurring by adding a
> > pm_runtime_probe() call in the following way:
> 
> s/pm_runtime_probe/pm_runtime_barrier/ (sorry)
> 
> The patchlet below is correct, though.
> 

I tested this patch it work and well...
Tested-by: Ricky Wu <ricky_wu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/pci/pci-driver.c |    7 +++++++
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >
> > Index: linux-pm/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
> >
> ================================================================
> ===
> > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
> > +++ linux-pm/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
> > @@ -473,6 +473,13 @@ static void pci_device_remove(struct dev
> >
> >      if (drv->remove) {
> >          pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
> > +        /*
> > +         * If the driver provides a .runtime_idle() callback and it has
> > +         * started to run already, it may continue to run in parallel
> > +         * with the code below, so wait until all of the runtime PM
> > +         * activity has completed.
> > +         */
> > +        pm_runtime_barrier(dev);
> >          drv->remove(pci_dev);
> >          pm_runtime_put_noidle(dev);
> >      }