All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Cc: Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	Linux PCI <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org>,
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] PM / Runtime: Rework the "runtime idle" helper routine
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 10:51:11 -0400 (EDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1305291023170.1473-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1463685.qFyr66vqF2@vostro.rjw.lan>

On Wed, 29 May 2013, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> 
> The "runtime idle" helper routine, rpm_idle(), currently ignores
> return values from .runtime_idle() callbacks executed by it.
> 
> However, it turns out that many subsystems use the generic idle
> callback routine pm_generic_runtime_idle() which checks the return
> value of the driver's callback and executes pm_runtime_suspend() for
> the device unless that value is different from 0.  If that logic is
> moved to rpm_idle() instead, pm_generic_runtime_idle() can be dropped
> and its users will not need any .runtime_idle() callbacks any more.

Since you're making this change, wouldn't it be a good idea to adopt
Mika's original suggestion and turn on the RPM_AUTO bit in rpmflags
when the use_autosuspend flag is set?

> Moreover, the PCI subsystem's .runtime_idle() routine,
> pci_pm_runtime_idle(), works in analogy with the generic one and if
> rpm_idle() calls rpm_suspend() after 0 has been returned by the
> .runtime_idle() callback executed by it, that routine will not be
> necessary any more and may be dropped.

See below.

What about cases where the runtime-idle callback does
rpm_schedule_suspend or rpm_request_suspend?  You'd have to make sure
that it returns -EBUSY in such cases.  Did you audit for this?

> Index: linux-pm/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt
> +++ linux-pm/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt
> @@ -660,11 +660,6 @@ Subsystems may wish to conserve code spa
>  management callbacks provided by the PM core, defined in
>  driver/base/power/generic_ops.c:
>  
> -  int pm_generic_runtime_idle(struct device *dev);
> -    - invoke the ->runtime_idle() callback provided by the driver of this
> -      device, if defined, and call pm_runtime_suspend() for this device if the
> -      return value is 0 or the callback is not defined
> -

The documentation for the runtime-idle callback needs to be updated too.

> Index: linux-pm/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
> @@ -1046,32 +1046,6 @@ static int pci_pm_runtime_resume(struct
>  	return rc;
>  }
>  
> -static int pci_pm_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
> -{
> -	struct pci_dev *pci_dev = to_pci_dev(dev);
> -	const struct dev_pm_ops *pm = dev->driver ? dev->driver->pm : NULL;
> -
> -	/*
> -	 * If pci_dev->driver is not set (unbound), the device should
> -	 * always remain in D0 regardless of the runtime PM status
> -	 */
> -	if (!pci_dev->driver)
> -		goto out;
> -
> -	if (!pm)
> -		return -ENOSYS;
> -
> -	if (pm->runtime_idle) {
> -		int ret = pm->runtime_idle(dev);
> -		if (ret)
> -			return ret;
> -	}
> -
> -out:
> -	pm_runtime_suspend(dev);
> -	return 0;
> -}

This may not be a safe change, because now the behavior is different
in the case where dev->driver is set but pci_dev->driver isn't.  The
difference is that you will now call the driver's runtime-idle
handler, whereas the existing code doesn't.

In fact, this may turn out to be a more widespread problem.  
dev->driver gets set before the probe routine is called, and it gets
cleared after the remove routine is called.  A runtime PM callback to
the driver during these windows isn't a good idea.  Erasing subsystems'
runtime_idle handlers, as this patch does, makes it impossible for the
subsystems to protect against this.

The patch also needs to update
drivers/usb/core/driver.c:usb_runtime_idle().  If you include Mika's
suggestion, the routine can be removed entirely.

Alan Stern


  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-05-29 14:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-05-28 23:29 [PATCH RFC] PM / Runtime: Rework the "runtime idle" helper routine Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-05-29  8:29 ` Mika Westerberg
2013-05-29 14:51 ` Alan Stern [this message]
2013-05-29 22:18   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-05-30  1:05     ` Aaron Lu
2013-05-30 17:08     ` Alan Stern
2013-05-30 19:55       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-05-30 20:13         ` Alan Stern
2013-06-02 21:50       ` [PATCH 0/2] PM / Runtime: Rework the "runtime idle" helper routine (was: Re: [PATCH RFC] PM / Runtime: Rework the "runtime idle" helper routine) Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-06-02 21:52         ` [PATCH 1/2, v2] PM / Runtime: Rework the "runtime idle" helper routine Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-06-03 14:33           ` Alan Stern
2013-06-03 19:20             ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-06-04  5:14           ` Aaron Lu
2013-06-04  7:15           ` Lan Tianyu
2013-06-02 21:53         ` [PATCH 2/2] PM / Runtime: Update .runtime_idle() callback documentation Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-05-31 19:55 ` [PATCH RFC] PM / Runtime: Rework the "runtime idle" helper routine Kevin Hilman
2013-06-02 19:44 ` Ulf Hansson

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1305291023170.1473-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org \
    --to=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=khilman@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.