From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: bhelgaas@google.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, lukas@wunner.de,
mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com, sanath.s@amd.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: Fix active state requirement in PME polling
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 12:50:52 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240123125052.133a42bc.alex.williamson@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0gcjxmBnFy=qrUfPCwJyvzS_gy139TqhoF=gf_U_E2jPA@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 20:40:32 +0100
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 7:56 PM Alex Williamson
> <alex.williamson@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > The commit noted in fixes added a bogus requirement that runtime PM
> > managed devices need to be in the RPM_ACTIVE state for PME polling.
> > In fact, only devices in low power states should be polled.
> >
> > However there's still a requirement that the device config space must
> > be accessible, which has implications for both the current state of
> > the polled device and the parent bridge, when present. It's not
> > sufficient to assume the bridge remains in D0 and cases have been
> > observed where the bridge passes the D0 test, but the PM state
> > indicates RPM_SUSPENDING and config space of the polled device becomes
> > inaccessible during pci_pme_wakeup().
> >
> > Therefore, since the bridge is already effectively required to be in
> > the RPM_ACTIVE state, formalize this in the code and elevate the PM
> > usage count to maintain the state while polling the subordinate
> > device.
> >
> > Cc: Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>
> > Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org>
> > Fixes: d3fcd7360338 ("PCI: Fix runtime PM race with PME polling")
> > Reported-by: Sanath S <sanath.s@amd.com>
> > Closes: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218360
> > Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/pci/pci.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > index bdbf8a94b4d0..764d7c977ef4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > @@ -2433,29 +2433,36 @@ static void pci_pme_list_scan(struct work_struct *work)
> > if (pdev->pme_poll) {
> > struct pci_dev *bridge = pdev->bus->self;
> > struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > - int pm_status;
> > + struct device *bdev = bridge ? &bridge->dev : NULL;
> > + int bref = 0;
> >
> > /*
> > - * If bridge is in low power state, the
> > - * configuration space of subordinate devices
> > - * may be not accessible
> > + * If we have a bridge, it should be in an active/D0
> > + * state or the configuration space of subordinate
> > + * devices may not be accessible or stable over the
> > + * course of the call.
> > */
> > - if (bridge && bridge->current_state != PCI_D0)
> > - continue;
> > + if (bdev) {
> > + bref = pm_runtime_get_if_active(bdev, true);
> > + if (!bref)
>
> I would check bref <= 0 here.
>
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + if (bridge->current_state != PCI_D0)
>
> Isn't the power state guaranteed to be PCI_D0 at this point? If it
> isn't, then why?
Both of these seem necessary to support !CONFIG_PM, where bref would be
-EINVAL and provides no indication of the current_state. Is that
incorrect? Thanks,
Alex
> > + goto put_bridge;
> > + }
> >
> > /*
> > - * If the device is in a low power state it
> > - * should not be polled either.
> > + * The device itself should be suspended but config
> > + * space must be accessible, therefore it cannot be in
> > + * D3cold.
> > */
> > - pm_status = pm_runtime_get_if_active(dev, true);
> > - if (!pm_status)
> > - continue;
> > -
> > - if (pdev->current_state != PCI_D3cold)
> > + if (pm_runtime_suspended(dev) &&
> > + pdev->current_state != PCI_D3cold)
> > pci_pme_wakeup(pdev, NULL);
> >
> > - if (pm_status > 0)
> > - pm_runtime_put(dev);
> > +put_bridge:
> > + if (bref > 0)
> > + pm_runtime_put(bdev);
> > } else {
> > list_del(&pme_dev->list);
> > kfree(pme_dev);
> > --
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-23 19:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-23 18:55 [PATCH] PCI: Fix active state requirement in PME polling Alex Williamson
2024-01-23 19:40 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-01-23 19:50 ` Alex Williamson [this message]
2024-01-23 19:59 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-01-23 20:39 ` Alex Williamson
2024-01-23 22:33 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-01-24 14:21 ` Sanath S
2024-02-09 16:35 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2024-02-09 17:56 ` Alex Williamson
2024-02-09 19:03 ` Bjorn Helgaas
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=20240123125052.133a42bc.alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--to=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lukas@wunner.de \
--cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=sanath.s@amd.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).