[RFC/PATCH v2] PM / Runtime: allow _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context

[RFC/PATCH v2] PM / Runtime: allow _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context

[Kevin Hilman]

Currently the use of pm_runtime_put_sync() is not safe from
interrupts-disabled context because rpm_idle() will release the
spinlock and enable interrupts for the idle callbacks.  This enables
interrupts during a time where interrupts were expected to be
disabled, and can have strange side effects on drivers that expected
interrupts to be disabled.

This is not a bug since the documentation clearly states that only
_put_sync_suspend() is safe in IRQ-safe mode.

However, pm_runtime_put_sync() could be made safe when in IRQ-safe
mode by releasing the spinlock but not re-enabling interrupts, which
is what this patch aims to do.

Problem was found when using some buggy drivers that set
pm_runtime_irq_safe() and used _put_sync() in interrupts-disabled
context.

The offending drivers have been fixed to use _put_sync_suspend(),
But this patch is an RFC to see if it might make sense to allow
using _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context.

Reported-by: Colin Cross <ccross@google.com>
Tested-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>
---
v2: update documentation also

 Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt |   10 +++++-----
 drivers/base/power/runtime.c       |   10 ++++++++--
 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt b/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt
index 14dd3c6..4ce5450 100644
--- a/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt
+++ b/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt
@@ -54,11 +54,10 @@ referred to as subsystem-level callbacks in what follows.
 By default, the callbacks are always invoked in process context with interrupts
 enabled.  However, subsystems can use the pm_runtime_irq_safe() helper function
 to tell the PM core that a device's ->runtime_suspend() and ->runtime_resume()
-callbacks should be invoked in atomic context with interrupts disabled
-(->runtime_idle() is still invoked the default way).  This implies that these
-callback routines must not block or sleep, but it also means that the
-synchronous helper functions listed at the end of Section 4 can be used within
-an interrupt handler or in an atomic context.
+callbacks should be invoked in atomic context with interrupts disabled.
+This implies that these callback routines must not block or sleep, but it also
+means that the synchronous helper functions listed at the end of Section 4 can
+be used within an interrupt handler or in an atomic context.
 
 The subsystem-level suspend callback is _entirely_ _responsible_ for handling
 the suspend of the device as appropriate, which may, but need not include
@@ -483,6 +482,7 @@ pm_runtime_suspend()
 pm_runtime_autosuspend()
 pm_runtime_resume()
 pm_runtime_get_sync()
+pm_runtime_put_sync()
 pm_runtime_put_sync_suspend()
 
 5. Runtime PM Initialization, Device Probing and Removal
diff --git a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
index 8dc247c..acb3f83 100644
--- a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
+++ b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
@@ -226,11 +226,17 @@ static int rpm_idle(struct device *dev, int rpmflags)
 		callback = NULL;
 
 	if (callback) {
-		spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
+		if (dev->power.irq_safe)
+			spin_unlock(&dev->power.lock);
+		else
+			spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
 
 		callback(dev);
 
-		spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
+		if (dev->power.irq_safe)
+			spin_lock(&dev->power.lock);
+		else
+			spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
 	}
 
 	dev->power.idle_notification = false;
-- 
1.7.6

[RFC/PATCH v2] PM / Runtime: allow _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context

[Kevin Hilman]

Currently the use of pm_runtime_put_sync() is not safe from
interrupts-disabled context because rpm_idle() will release the
spinlock and enable interrupts for the idle callbacks.  This enables
interrupts during a time where interrupts were expected to be
disabled, and can have strange side effects on drivers that expected
interrupts to be disabled.

This is not a bug since the documentation clearly states that only
_put_sync_suspend() is safe in IRQ-safe mode.

However, pm_runtime_put_sync() could be made safe when in IRQ-safe
mode by releasing the spinlock but not re-enabling interrupts, which
is what this patch aims to do.

Problem was found when using some buggy drivers that set
pm_runtime_irq_safe() and used _put_sync() in interrupts-disabled
context.

The offending drivers have been fixed to use _put_sync_suspend(),
But this patch is an RFC to see if it might make sense to allow
using _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context.

Reported-by: Colin Cross <ccross@google.com>
Tested-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>
---
v2: update documentation also

 Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt |   10 +++++-----
 drivers/base/power/runtime.c       |   10 ++++++++--
 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt b/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt
index 14dd3c6..4ce5450 100644
--- a/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt
+++ b/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt
@@ -54,11 +54,10 @@ referred to as subsystem-level callbacks in what follows.
 By default, the callbacks are always invoked in process context with interrupts
 enabled.  However, subsystems can use the pm_runtime_irq_safe() helper function
 to tell the PM core that a device's ->runtime_suspend() and ->runtime_resume()
-callbacks should be invoked in atomic context with interrupts disabled
-(->runtime_idle() is still invoked the default way).  This implies that these
-callback routines must not block or sleep, but it also means that the
-synchronous helper functions listed at the end of Section 4 can be used within
-an interrupt handler or in an atomic context.
+callbacks should be invoked in atomic context with interrupts disabled.
+This implies that these callback routines must not block or sleep, but it also
+means that the synchronous helper functions listed at the end of Section 4 can
+be used within an interrupt handler or in an atomic context.
 
 The subsystem-level suspend callback is _entirely_ _responsible_ for handling
 the suspend of the device as appropriate, which may, but need not include
@@ -483,6 +482,7 @@ pm_runtime_suspend()
 pm_runtime_autosuspend()
 pm_runtime_resume()
 pm_runtime_get_sync()
+pm_runtime_put_sync()
 pm_runtime_put_sync_suspend()
 
 5. Runtime PM Initialization, Device Probing and Removal
diff --git a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
index 8dc247c..acb3f83 100644
--- a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
+++ b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
@@ -226,11 +226,17 @@ static int rpm_idle(struct device *dev, int rpmflags)
 		callback = NULL;
 
 	if (callback) {
-		spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
+		if (dev->power.irq_safe)
+			spin_unlock(&dev->power.lock);
+		else
+			spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
 
 		callback(dev);
 
-		spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
+		if (dev->power.irq_safe)
+			spin_lock(&dev->power.lock);
+		else
+			spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
 	}
 
 	dev->power.idle_notification = false;
-- 
1.7.6

Re: [RFC/PATCH v2] PM / Runtime: allow _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Friday, July 22, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Currently the use of pm_runtime_put_sync() is not safe from
> interrupts-disabled context because rpm_idle() will release the
> spinlock and enable interrupts for the idle callbacks.  This enables
> interrupts during a time where interrupts were expected to be
> disabled, and can have strange side effects on drivers that expected
> interrupts to be disabled.
> 
> This is not a bug since the documentation clearly states that only
> _put_sync_suspend() is safe in IRQ-safe mode.
> 
> However, pm_runtime_put_sync() could be made safe when in IRQ-safe
> mode by releasing the spinlock but not re-enabling interrupts, which
> is what this patch aims to do.
> 
> Problem was found when using some buggy drivers that set
> pm_runtime_irq_safe() and used _put_sync() in interrupts-disabled
> context.
> 
> The offending drivers have been fixed to use _put_sync_suspend(),
> But this patch is an RFC to see if it might make sense to allow
> using _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context.

OK, I'm going to take this for 3.2.

Thanks,
Rafael


> Reported-by: Colin Cross <ccross@google.com>
> Tested-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
> Signed-off-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>
> ---
> v2: update documentation also
> 
>  Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt |   10 +++++-----
>  drivers/base/power/runtime.c       |   10 ++++++++--
>  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt b/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt
> index 14dd3c6..4ce5450 100644
> --- a/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt
> @@ -54,11 +54,10 @@ referred to as subsystem-level callbacks in what follows.
>  By default, the callbacks are always invoked in process context with interrupts
>  enabled.  However, subsystems can use the pm_runtime_irq_safe() helper function
>  to tell the PM core that a device's ->runtime_suspend() and ->runtime_resume()
> -callbacks should be invoked in atomic context with interrupts disabled
> -(->runtime_idle() is still invoked the default way).  This implies that these
> -callback routines must not block or sleep, but it also means that the
> -synchronous helper functions listed at the end of Section 4 can be used within
> -an interrupt handler or in an atomic context.
> +callbacks should be invoked in atomic context with interrupts disabled.
> +This implies that these callback routines must not block or sleep, but it also
> +means that the synchronous helper functions listed at the end of Section 4 can
> +be used within an interrupt handler or in an atomic context.
>  
>  The subsystem-level suspend callback is _entirely_ _responsible_ for handling
>  the suspend of the device as appropriate, which may, but need not include
> @@ -483,6 +482,7 @@ pm_runtime_suspend()
>  pm_runtime_autosuspend()
>  pm_runtime_resume()
>  pm_runtime_get_sync()
> +pm_runtime_put_sync()
>  pm_runtime_put_sync_suspend()
>  
>  5. Runtime PM Initialization, Device Probing and Removal
> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> index 8dc247c..acb3f83 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> @@ -226,11 +226,17 @@ static int rpm_idle(struct device *dev, int rpmflags)
>  		callback = NULL;
>  
>  	if (callback) {
> -		spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
> +		if (dev->power.irq_safe)
> +			spin_unlock(&dev->power.lock);
> +		else
> +			spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
>  
>  		callback(dev);
>  
> -		spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
> +		if (dev->power.irq_safe)
> +			spin_lock(&dev->power.lock);
> +		else
> +			spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
>  	}
>  
>  	dev->power.idle_notification = false;
> 

Re: [linux-pm] [RFC/PATCH v2] PM / Runtime: allow _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Friday, July 22, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Currently the use of pm_runtime_put_sync() is not safe from
> interrupts-disabled context because rpm_idle() will release the
> spinlock and enable interrupts for the idle callbacks.  This enables
> interrupts during a time where interrupts were expected to be
> disabled, and can have strange side effects on drivers that expected
> interrupts to be disabled.
> 
> This is not a bug since the documentation clearly states that only
> _put_sync_suspend() is safe in IRQ-safe mode.
> 
> However, pm_runtime_put_sync() could be made safe when in IRQ-safe
> mode by releasing the spinlock but not re-enabling interrupts, which
> is what this patch aims to do.
> 
> Problem was found when using some buggy drivers that set
> pm_runtime_irq_safe() and used _put_sync() in interrupts-disabled
> context.
> 
> The offending drivers have been fixed to use _put_sync_suspend(),
> But this patch is an RFC to see if it might make sense to allow
> using _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context.

OK, I'm going to take this for 3.2.

Thanks,
Rafael


> Reported-by: Colin Cross <ccross@google.com>
> Tested-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
> Signed-off-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>
> ---
> v2: update documentation also
> 
>  Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt |   10 +++++-----
>  drivers/base/power/runtime.c       |   10 ++++++++--
>  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt b/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt
> index 14dd3c6..4ce5450 100644
> --- a/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt
> @@ -54,11 +54,10 @@ referred to as subsystem-level callbacks in what follows.
>  By default, the callbacks are always invoked in process context with interrupts
>  enabled.  However, subsystems can use the pm_runtime_irq_safe() helper function
>  to tell the PM core that a device's ->runtime_suspend() and ->runtime_resume()
> -callbacks should be invoked in atomic context with interrupts disabled
> -(->runtime_idle() is still invoked the default way).  This implies that these
> -callback routines must not block or sleep, but it also means that the
> -synchronous helper functions listed at the end of Section 4 can be used within
> -an interrupt handler or in an atomic context.
> +callbacks should be invoked in atomic context with interrupts disabled.
> +This implies that these callback routines must not block or sleep, but it also
> +means that the synchronous helper functions listed at the end of Section 4 can
> +be used within an interrupt handler or in an atomic context.
>  
>  The subsystem-level suspend callback is _entirely_ _responsible_ for handling
>  the suspend of the device as appropriate, which may, but need not include
> @@ -483,6 +482,7 @@ pm_runtime_suspend()
>  pm_runtime_autosuspend()
>  pm_runtime_resume()
>  pm_runtime_get_sync()
> +pm_runtime_put_sync()
>  pm_runtime_put_sync_suspend()
>  
>  5. Runtime PM Initialization, Device Probing and Removal
> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> index 8dc247c..acb3f83 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> @@ -226,11 +226,17 @@ static int rpm_idle(struct device *dev, int rpmflags)
>  		callback = NULL;
>  
>  	if (callback) {
> -		spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
> +		if (dev->power.irq_safe)
> +			spin_unlock(&dev->power.lock);
> +		else
> +			spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
>  
>  		callback(dev);
>  
> -		spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
> +		if (dev->power.irq_safe)
> +			spin_lock(&dev->power.lock);
> +		else
> +			spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
>  	}
>  
>  	dev->power.idle_notification = false;
> 

[linux-pm] [RFC/PATCH v2] PM / Runtime: allow _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Friday, July 22, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Currently the use of pm_runtime_put_sync() is not safe from
> interrupts-disabled context because rpm_idle() will release the
> spinlock and enable interrupts for the idle callbacks.  This enables
> interrupts during a time where interrupts were expected to be
> disabled, and can have strange side effects on drivers that expected
> interrupts to be disabled.
> 
> This is not a bug since the documentation clearly states that only
> _put_sync_suspend() is safe in IRQ-safe mode.
> 
> However, pm_runtime_put_sync() could be made safe when in IRQ-safe
> mode by releasing the spinlock but not re-enabling interrupts, which
> is what this patch aims to do.
> 
> Problem was found when using some buggy drivers that set
> pm_runtime_irq_safe() and used _put_sync() in interrupts-disabled
> context.
> 
> The offending drivers have been fixed to use _put_sync_suspend(),
> But this patch is an RFC to see if it might make sense to allow
> using _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context.

OK, I'm going to take this for 3.2.

Thanks,
Rafael


> Reported-by: Colin Cross <ccross@google.com>
> Tested-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
> Signed-off-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>
> ---
> v2: update documentation also
> 
>  Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt |   10 +++++-----
>  drivers/base/power/runtime.c       |   10 ++++++++--
>  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt b/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt
> index 14dd3c6..4ce5450 100644
> --- a/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt
> @@ -54,11 +54,10 @@ referred to as subsystem-level callbacks in what follows.
>  By default, the callbacks are always invoked in process context with interrupts
>  enabled.  However, subsystems can use the pm_runtime_irq_safe() helper function
>  to tell the PM core that a device's ->runtime_suspend() and ->runtime_resume()
> -callbacks should be invoked in atomic context with interrupts disabled
> -(->runtime_idle() is still invoked the default way).  This implies that these
> -callback routines must not block or sleep, but it also means that the
> -synchronous helper functions listed at the end of Section 4 can be used within
> -an interrupt handler or in an atomic context.
> +callbacks should be invoked in atomic context with interrupts disabled.
> +This implies that these callback routines must not block or sleep, but it also
> +means that the synchronous helper functions listed at the end of Section 4 can
> +be used within an interrupt handler or in an atomic context.
>  
>  The subsystem-level suspend callback is _entirely_ _responsible_ for handling
>  the suspend of the device as appropriate, which may, but need not include
> @@ -483,6 +482,7 @@ pm_runtime_suspend()
>  pm_runtime_autosuspend()
>  pm_runtime_resume()
>  pm_runtime_get_sync()
> +pm_runtime_put_sync()
>  pm_runtime_put_sync_suspend()
>  
>  5. Runtime PM Initialization, Device Probing and Removal
> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> index 8dc247c..acb3f83 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> @@ -226,11 +226,17 @@ static int rpm_idle(struct device *dev, int rpmflags)
>  		callback = NULL;
>  
>  	if (callback) {
> -		spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
> +		if (dev->power.irq_safe)
> +			spin_unlock(&dev->power.lock);
> +		else
> +			spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
>  
>  		callback(dev);
>  
> -		spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
> +		if (dev->power.irq_safe)
> +			spin_lock(&dev->power.lock);
> +		else
> +			spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
>  	}
>  
>  	dev->power.idle_notification = false;
> 

Re: [RFC/PATCH v2] PM / Runtime: allow _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context

[Kevin Hilman]

"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> writes:

> On Friday, July 22, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Currently the use of pm_runtime_put_sync() is not safe from
>> interrupts-disabled context because rpm_idle() will release the
>> spinlock and enable interrupts for the idle callbacks.  This enables
>> interrupts during a time where interrupts were expected to be
>> disabled, and can have strange side effects on drivers that expected
>> interrupts to be disabled.
>> 
>> This is not a bug since the documentation clearly states that only
>> _put_sync_suspend() is safe in IRQ-safe mode.
>> 
>> However, pm_runtime_put_sync() could be made safe when in IRQ-safe
>> mode by releasing the spinlock but not re-enabling interrupts, which
>> is what this patch aims to do.
>> 
>> Problem was found when using some buggy drivers that set
>> pm_runtime_irq_safe() and used _put_sync() in interrupts-disabled
>> context.
>> 
>> The offending drivers have been fixed to use _put_sync_suspend(),
>> But this patch is an RFC to see if it might make sense to allow
>> using _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context.
>
> OK, I'm going to take this for 3.2.
>

OK, great.  Thanks.

Might want to just drop the last paragraph from the changelog since it
doesn't really belong in the permanant history.

Kevin

Re: [linux-pm] [RFC/PATCH v2] PM / Runtime: allow _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context

[Kevin Hilman]

"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> writes:

> On Friday, July 22, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Currently the use of pm_runtime_put_sync() is not safe from
>> interrupts-disabled context because rpm_idle() will release the
>> spinlock and enable interrupts for the idle callbacks.  This enables
>> interrupts during a time where interrupts were expected to be
>> disabled, and can have strange side effects on drivers that expected
>> interrupts to be disabled.
>> 
>> This is not a bug since the documentation clearly states that only
>> _put_sync_suspend() is safe in IRQ-safe mode.
>> 
>> However, pm_runtime_put_sync() could be made safe when in IRQ-safe
>> mode by releasing the spinlock but not re-enabling interrupts, which
>> is what this patch aims to do.
>> 
>> Problem was found when using some buggy drivers that set
>> pm_runtime_irq_safe() and used _put_sync() in interrupts-disabled
>> context.
>> 
>> The offending drivers have been fixed to use _put_sync_suspend(),
>> But this patch is an RFC to see if it might make sense to allow
>> using _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context.
>
> OK, I'm going to take this for 3.2.
>

OK, great.  Thanks.

Might want to just drop the last paragraph from the changelog since it
doesn't really belong in the permanant history.

Kevin

[linux-pm] [RFC/PATCH v2] PM / Runtime: allow _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context

[Kevin Hilman]

"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> writes:

> On Friday, July 22, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Currently the use of pm_runtime_put_sync() is not safe from
>> interrupts-disabled context because rpm_idle() will release the
>> spinlock and enable interrupts for the idle callbacks.  This enables
>> interrupts during a time where interrupts were expected to be
>> disabled, and can have strange side effects on drivers that expected
>> interrupts to be disabled.
>> 
>> This is not a bug since the documentation clearly states that only
>> _put_sync_suspend() is safe in IRQ-safe mode.
>> 
>> However, pm_runtime_put_sync() could be made safe when in IRQ-safe
>> mode by releasing the spinlock but not re-enabling interrupts, which
>> is what this patch aims to do.
>> 
>> Problem was found when using some buggy drivers that set
>> pm_runtime_irq_safe() and used _put_sync() in interrupts-disabled
>> context.
>> 
>> The offending drivers have been fixed to use _put_sync_suspend(),
>> But this patch is an RFC to see if it might make sense to allow
>> using _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context.
>
> OK, I'm going to take this for 3.2.
>

OK, great.  Thanks.

Might want to just drop the last paragraph from the changelog since it
doesn't really belong in the permanant history.

Kevin

Re: [RFC/PATCH v2] PM / Runtime: allow _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wednesday, July 27, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> writes:
> 
> > On Friday, July 22, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> >> Currently the use of pm_runtime_put_sync() is not safe from
> >> interrupts-disabled context because rpm_idle() will release the
> >> spinlock and enable interrupts for the idle callbacks.  This enables
> >> interrupts during a time where interrupts were expected to be
> >> disabled, and can have strange side effects on drivers that expected
> >> interrupts to be disabled.
> >> 
> >> This is not a bug since the documentation clearly states that only
> >> _put_sync_suspend() is safe in IRQ-safe mode.
> >> 
> >> However, pm_runtime_put_sync() could be made safe when in IRQ-safe
> >> mode by releasing the spinlock but not re-enabling interrupts, which
> >> is what this patch aims to do.
> >> 
> >> Problem was found when using some buggy drivers that set
> >> pm_runtime_irq_safe() and used _put_sync() in interrupts-disabled
> >> context.
> >> 
> >> The offending drivers have been fixed to use _put_sync_suspend(),
> >> But this patch is an RFC to see if it might make sense to allow
> >> using _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context.
> >
> > OK, I'm going to take this for 3.2.
> >
> 
> OK, great.  Thanks.
> 
> Might want to just drop the last paragraph from the changelog since it
> doesn't really belong in the permanant history.

OK

Thanks,
Rafael

Re: [linux-pm] [RFC/PATCH v2] PM / Runtime: allow _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wednesday, July 27, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> writes:
> 
> > On Friday, July 22, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> >> Currently the use of pm_runtime_put_sync() is not safe from
> >> interrupts-disabled context because rpm_idle() will release the
> >> spinlock and enable interrupts for the idle callbacks.  This enables
> >> interrupts during a time where interrupts were expected to be
> >> disabled, and can have strange side effects on drivers that expected
> >> interrupts to be disabled.
> >> 
> >> This is not a bug since the documentation clearly states that only
> >> _put_sync_suspend() is safe in IRQ-safe mode.
> >> 
> >> However, pm_runtime_put_sync() could be made safe when in IRQ-safe
> >> mode by releasing the spinlock but not re-enabling interrupts, which
> >> is what this patch aims to do.
> >> 
> >> Problem was found when using some buggy drivers that set
> >> pm_runtime_irq_safe() and used _put_sync() in interrupts-disabled
> >> context.
> >> 
> >> The offending drivers have been fixed to use _put_sync_suspend(),
> >> But this patch is an RFC to see if it might make sense to allow
> >> using _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context.
> >
> > OK, I'm going to take this for 3.2.
> >
> 
> OK, great.  Thanks.
> 
> Might want to just drop the last paragraph from the changelog since it
> doesn't really belong in the permanant history.

OK

Thanks,
Rafael

[linux-pm] [RFC/PATCH v2] PM / Runtime: allow _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wednesday, July 27, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> writes:
> 
> > On Friday, July 22, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> >> Currently the use of pm_runtime_put_sync() is not safe from
> >> interrupts-disabled context because rpm_idle() will release the
> >> spinlock and enable interrupts for the idle callbacks.  This enables
> >> interrupts during a time where interrupts were expected to be
> >> disabled, and can have strange side effects on drivers that expected
> >> interrupts to be disabled.
> >> 
> >> This is not a bug since the documentation clearly states that only
> >> _put_sync_suspend() is safe in IRQ-safe mode.
> >> 
> >> However, pm_runtime_put_sync() could be made safe when in IRQ-safe
> >> mode by releasing the spinlock but not re-enabling interrupts, which
> >> is what this patch aims to do.
> >> 
> >> Problem was found when using some buggy drivers that set
> >> pm_runtime_irq_safe() and used _put_sync() in interrupts-disabled
> >> context.
> >> 
> >> The offending drivers have been fixed to use _put_sync_suspend(),
> >> But this patch is an RFC to see if it might make sense to allow
> >> using _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context.
> >
> > OK, I'm going to take this for 3.2.
> >
> 
> OK, great.  Thanks.
> 
> Might want to just drop the last paragraph from the changelog since it
> doesn't really belong in the permanant history.

OK

Thanks,
Rafael

Re: [RFC/PATCH v2] PM / Runtime: allow _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context

[Kevin Hilman]

"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> writes:

> On Friday, July 22, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Currently the use of pm_runtime_put_sync() is not safe from
>> interrupts-disabled context because rpm_idle() will release the
>> spinlock and enable interrupts for the idle callbacks.  This enables
>> interrupts during a time where interrupts were expected to be
>> disabled, and can have strange side effects on drivers that expected
>> interrupts to be disabled.
>> 
>> This is not a bug since the documentation clearly states that only
>> _put_sync_suspend() is safe in IRQ-safe mode.
>> 
>> However, pm_runtime_put_sync() could be made safe when in IRQ-safe
>> mode by releasing the spinlock but not re-enabling interrupts, which
>> is what this patch aims to do.
>> 
>> Problem was found when using some buggy drivers that set
>> pm_runtime_irq_safe() and used _put_sync() in interrupts-disabled
>> context.
>> 
>> The offending drivers have been fixed to use _put_sync_suspend(),
>> But this patch is an RFC to see if it might make sense to allow
>> using _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context.
>
> OK, I'm going to take this for 3.2.

Rafael, 

Since you're planning to merge this, maybe we should consider merging
this as a fix for v3.1, and possibly even for v3.0 stable.  That way,
any current drivers using irq_safe and the normal _put_sync() will not
have this problem.

Kevin

Re: [linux-pm] [RFC/PATCH v2] PM / Runtime: allow _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context

[Kevin Hilman]

"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> writes:

> On Friday, July 22, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Currently the use of pm_runtime_put_sync() is not safe from
>> interrupts-disabled context because rpm_idle() will release the
>> spinlock and enable interrupts for the idle callbacks.  This enables
>> interrupts during a time where interrupts were expected to be
>> disabled, and can have strange side effects on drivers that expected
>> interrupts to be disabled.
>> 
>> This is not a bug since the documentation clearly states that only
>> _put_sync_suspend() is safe in IRQ-safe mode.
>> 
>> However, pm_runtime_put_sync() could be made safe when in IRQ-safe
>> mode by releasing the spinlock but not re-enabling interrupts, which
>> is what this patch aims to do.
>> 
>> Problem was found when using some buggy drivers that set
>> pm_runtime_irq_safe() and used _put_sync() in interrupts-disabled
>> context.
>> 
>> The offending drivers have been fixed to use _put_sync_suspend(),
>> But this patch is an RFC to see if it might make sense to allow
>> using _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context.
>
> OK, I'm going to take this for 3.2.

Rafael, 

Since you're planning to merge this, maybe we should consider merging
this as a fix for v3.1, and possibly even for v3.0 stable.  That way,
any current drivers using irq_safe and the normal _put_sync() will not
have this problem.

Kevin

[linux-pm] [RFC/PATCH v2] PM / Runtime: allow _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context

[Kevin Hilman]

"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> writes:

> On Friday, July 22, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Currently the use of pm_runtime_put_sync() is not safe from
>> interrupts-disabled context because rpm_idle() will release the
>> spinlock and enable interrupts for the idle callbacks.  This enables
>> interrupts during a time where interrupts were expected to be
>> disabled, and can have strange side effects on drivers that expected
>> interrupts to be disabled.
>> 
>> This is not a bug since the documentation clearly states that only
>> _put_sync_suspend() is safe in IRQ-safe mode.
>> 
>> However, pm_runtime_put_sync() could be made safe when in IRQ-safe
>> mode by releasing the spinlock but not re-enabling interrupts, which
>> is what this patch aims to do.
>> 
>> Problem was found when using some buggy drivers that set
>> pm_runtime_irq_safe() and used _put_sync() in interrupts-disabled
>> context.
>> 
>> The offending drivers have been fixed to use _put_sync_suspend(),
>> But this patch is an RFC to see if it might make sense to allow
>> using _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context.
>
> OK, I'm going to take this for 3.2.

Rafael, 

Since you're planning to merge this, maybe we should consider merging
this as a fix for v3.1, and possibly even for v3.0 stable.  That way,
any current drivers using irq_safe and the normal _put_sync() will not
have this problem.

Kevin

Re: [RFC/PATCH v2] PM / Runtime: allow _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Friday, August 05, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> writes:
> 
> > On Friday, July 22, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> >> Currently the use of pm_runtime_put_sync() is not safe from
> >> interrupts-disabled context because rpm_idle() will release the
> >> spinlock and enable interrupts for the idle callbacks.  This enables
> >> interrupts during a time where interrupts were expected to be
> >> disabled, and can have strange side effects on drivers that expected
> >> interrupts to be disabled.
> >> 
> >> This is not a bug since the documentation clearly states that only
> >> _put_sync_suspend() is safe in IRQ-safe mode.
> >> 
> >> However, pm_runtime_put_sync() could be made safe when in IRQ-safe
> >> mode by releasing the spinlock but not re-enabling interrupts, which
> >> is what this patch aims to do.
> >> 
> >> Problem was found when using some buggy drivers that set
> >> pm_runtime_irq_safe() and used _put_sync() in interrupts-disabled
> >> context.
> >> 
> >> The offending drivers have been fixed to use _put_sync_suspend(),
> >> But this patch is an RFC to see if it might make sense to allow
> >> using _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context.
> >
> > OK, I'm going to take this for 3.2.
> 
> Rafael, 
> 
> Since you're planning to merge this, maybe we should consider merging
> this as a fix for v3.1, and possibly even for v3.0 stable.  That way,
> any current drivers using irq_safe and the normal _put_sync() will not
> have this problem.

I think I can push it for 3.1, but I don't think it's stable material.

Thanks,
Rafael

Re: [linux-pm] [RFC/PATCH v2] PM / Runtime: allow _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Friday, August 05, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> writes:
> 
> > On Friday, July 22, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> >> Currently the use of pm_runtime_put_sync() is not safe from
> >> interrupts-disabled context because rpm_idle() will release the
> >> spinlock and enable interrupts for the idle callbacks.  This enables
> >> interrupts during a time where interrupts were expected to be
> >> disabled, and can have strange side effects on drivers that expected
> >> interrupts to be disabled.
> >> 
> >> This is not a bug since the documentation clearly states that only
> >> _put_sync_suspend() is safe in IRQ-safe mode.
> >> 
> >> However, pm_runtime_put_sync() could be made safe when in IRQ-safe
> >> mode by releasing the spinlock but not re-enabling interrupts, which
> >> is what this patch aims to do.
> >> 
> >> Problem was found when using some buggy drivers that set
> >> pm_runtime_irq_safe() and used _put_sync() in interrupts-disabled
> >> context.
> >> 
> >> The offending drivers have been fixed to use _put_sync_suspend(),
> >> But this patch is an RFC to see if it might make sense to allow
> >> using _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context.
> >
> > OK, I'm going to take this for 3.2.
> 
> Rafael, 
> 
> Since you're planning to merge this, maybe we should consider merging
> this as a fix for v3.1, and possibly even for v3.0 stable.  That way,
> any current drivers using irq_safe and the normal _put_sync() will not
> have this problem.

I think I can push it for 3.1, but I don't think it's stable material.

Thanks,
Rafael

[linux-pm] [RFC/PATCH v2] PM / Runtime: allow _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Friday, August 05, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> writes:
> 
> > On Friday, July 22, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> >> Currently the use of pm_runtime_put_sync() is not safe from
> >> interrupts-disabled context because rpm_idle() will release the
> >> spinlock and enable interrupts for the idle callbacks.  This enables
> >> interrupts during a time where interrupts were expected to be
> >> disabled, and can have strange side effects on drivers that expected
> >> interrupts to be disabled.
> >> 
> >> This is not a bug since the documentation clearly states that only
> >> _put_sync_suspend() is safe in IRQ-safe mode.
> >> 
> >> However, pm_runtime_put_sync() could be made safe when in IRQ-safe
> >> mode by releasing the spinlock but not re-enabling interrupts, which
> >> is what this patch aims to do.
> >> 
> >> Problem was found when using some buggy drivers that set
> >> pm_runtime_irq_safe() and used _put_sync() in interrupts-disabled
> >> context.
> >> 
> >> The offending drivers have been fixed to use _put_sync_suspend(),
> >> But this patch is an RFC to see if it might make sense to allow
> >> using _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context.
> >
> > OK, I'm going to take this for 3.2.
> 
> Rafael, 
> 
> Since you're planning to merge this, maybe we should consider merging
> this as a fix for v3.1, and possibly even for v3.0 stable.  That way,
> any current drivers using irq_safe and the normal _put_sync() will not
> have this problem.

I think I can push it for 3.1, but I don't think it's stable material.

Thanks,
Rafael

Re: [RFC/PATCH v2] PM / Runtime: allow _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context

[Kevin Hilman]

"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> writes:

> On Friday, August 05, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> writes:
>> 
>> > On Friday, July 22, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> >> Currently the use of pm_runtime_put_sync() is not safe from
>> >> interrupts-disabled context because rpm_idle() will release the
>> >> spinlock and enable interrupts for the idle callbacks.  This enables
>> >> interrupts during a time where interrupts were expected to be
>> >> disabled, and can have strange side effects on drivers that expected
>> >> interrupts to be disabled.
>> >> 
>> >> This is not a bug since the documentation clearly states that only
>> >> _put_sync_suspend() is safe in IRQ-safe mode.
>> >> 
>> >> However, pm_runtime_put_sync() could be made safe when in IRQ-safe
>> >> mode by releasing the spinlock but not re-enabling interrupts, which
>> >> is what this patch aims to do.
>> >> 
>> >> Problem was found when using some buggy drivers that set
>> >> pm_runtime_irq_safe() and used _put_sync() in interrupts-disabled
>> >> context.
>> >> 
>> >> The offending drivers have been fixed to use _put_sync_suspend(),
>> >> But this patch is an RFC to see if it might make sense to allow
>> >> using _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context.
>> >
>> > OK, I'm going to take this for 3.2.
>> 
>> Rafael, 
>> 
>> Since you're planning to merge this, maybe we should consider merging
>> this as a fix for v3.1, and possibly even for v3.0 stable.  That way,
>> any current drivers using irq_safe and the normal _put_sync() will not
>> have this problem.
>
> I think I can push it for 3.1, but I don't think it's stable material.
>

OK, fair enough.

Kevin

Re: [linux-pm] [RFC/PATCH v2] PM / Runtime: allow _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context

[Kevin Hilman]

"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> writes:

> On Friday, August 05, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> writes:
>> 
>> > On Friday, July 22, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> >> Currently the use of pm_runtime_put_sync() is not safe from
>> >> interrupts-disabled context because rpm_idle() will release the
>> >> spinlock and enable interrupts for the idle callbacks.  This enables
>> >> interrupts during a time where interrupts were expected to be
>> >> disabled, and can have strange side effects on drivers that expected
>> >> interrupts to be disabled.
>> >> 
>> >> This is not a bug since the documentation clearly states that only
>> >> _put_sync_suspend() is safe in IRQ-safe mode.
>> >> 
>> >> However, pm_runtime_put_sync() could be made safe when in IRQ-safe
>> >> mode by releasing the spinlock but not re-enabling interrupts, which
>> >> is what this patch aims to do.
>> >> 
>> >> Problem was found when using some buggy drivers that set
>> >> pm_runtime_irq_safe() and used _put_sync() in interrupts-disabled
>> >> context.
>> >> 
>> >> The offending drivers have been fixed to use _put_sync_suspend(),
>> >> But this patch is an RFC to see if it might make sense to allow
>> >> using _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context.
>> >
>> > OK, I'm going to take this for 3.2.
>> 
>> Rafael, 
>> 
>> Since you're planning to merge this, maybe we should consider merging
>> this as a fix for v3.1, and possibly even for v3.0 stable.  That way,
>> any current drivers using irq_safe and the normal _put_sync() will not
>> have this problem.
>
> I think I can push it for 3.1, but I don't think it's stable material.
>

OK, fair enough.

Kevin

[linux-pm] [RFC/PATCH v2] PM / Runtime: allow _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context

[Kevin Hilman]

"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> writes:

> On Friday, August 05, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> writes:
>> 
>> > On Friday, July 22, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> >> Currently the use of pm_runtime_put_sync() is not safe from
>> >> interrupts-disabled context because rpm_idle() will release the
>> >> spinlock and enable interrupts for the idle callbacks.  This enables
>> >> interrupts during a time where interrupts were expected to be
>> >> disabled, and can have strange side effects on drivers that expected
>> >> interrupts to be disabled.
>> >> 
>> >> This is not a bug since the documentation clearly states that only
>> >> _put_sync_suspend() is safe in IRQ-safe mode.
>> >> 
>> >> However, pm_runtime_put_sync() could be made safe when in IRQ-safe
>> >> mode by releasing the spinlock but not re-enabling interrupts, which
>> >> is what this patch aims to do.
>> >> 
>> >> Problem was found when using some buggy drivers that set
>> >> pm_runtime_irq_safe() and used _put_sync() in interrupts-disabled
>> >> context.
>> >> 
>> >> The offending drivers have been fixed to use _put_sync_suspend(),
>> >> But this patch is an RFC to see if it might make sense to allow
>> >> using _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context.
>> >
>> > OK, I'm going to take this for 3.2.
>> 
>> Rafael, 
>> 
>> Since you're planning to merge this, maybe we should consider merging
>> this as a fix for v3.1, and possibly even for v3.0 stable.  That way,
>> any current drivers using irq_safe and the normal _put_sync() will not
>> have this problem.
>
> I think I can push it for 3.1, but I don't think it's stable material.
>

OK, fair enough.

Kevin