From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CA21C2BA19 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 22:20:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C56D206E9 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 22:20:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732277AbgDOWUq (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2020 18:20:46 -0400 Received: from cloudserver094114.home.pl ([79.96.170.134]:43926 "EHLO cloudserver094114.home.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726506AbgDOWUk (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2020 18:20:40 -0400 Received: from 185.80.35.16 (185.80.35.16) (HELO kreacher.localnet) by serwer1319399.home.pl (79.96.170.134) with SMTP (IdeaSmtpServer 0.83.415) id 8701ae94ebb8b663; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 00:20:35 +0200 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Alan Stern Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Qais Yousef , USB list , Linux-pm mailing list , Kernel development list Subject: Re: lockdep warning in urb.c:363 usb_submit_urb Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 00:20:35 +0200 Message-ID: <1998412.Cp2JyuGtSI@kreacher> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday, April 14, 2020 7:47:35 PM CEST Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 14 Apr 2020, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > Note to self: avoid replying to technical messages late in the night ... > > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 11:32 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, April 11, 2020 4:41:14 AM CEST Alan Stern wrote: > > > > Okay, this is my attempt to summarize what we have been discussing. > > > > But first: There is a dev_pm_skip_resume() helper routine which > > > > subsystems can call to see whether resume-side _early and _noirq driver > > > > callbacks should be skipped. But there is no corresponding > > > > dev_pm_skip_suspend() helper routine. Let's add one, or rename > > > > dev_pm_smart_suspend_and_suspended() to dev_pm_skip_suspend(). > > > > > > OK > > > > > > > Given that, here's my understanding of what should happen. (I'm > > > > assuming the direct_complete mechanism is not being used.) This tries > > > > to describe what we _want_ to happen, which is not always the same as > > > > what the current code actually _does_. > > > > > > OK > > > > > > > During the suspend side, for each of the > > > > {suspend,freeze,poweroff}_{late,noirq} phases: If > > > > dev_pm_skip_suspend() returns true then the subsystem should > > > > not invoke the driver's callback, and if there is no subsystem > > > > callback then the core will not invoke the driver's callback. > > > > > > > > During the resume side, for each of the > > > > {resume,thaw,restore}_{early,noirq} phases: If > > > > dev_pm_skip_resume() returns true then the subsystem should > > > > not invoke the driver's callback, and if there is no subsystem > > > > callback then the core will not invoke the driver's callback. > > > > > > > > dev_pm_skip_suspend() will return "true" if SMART_SUSPEND is > > > > set and the device's runtime status is "suspended". > > > > > > Agreed with the above. > > > > > > > power.must_resume gets set following the suspend-side _noirq > > > > phase if power.usage_count > 1 (indicating the device was > > > > in active use before the start of the sleep transition) or > > > > power.must_resume is set for any of the device's dependents. > > > > > > Or MAY_SKIP_RESUME is unset (which means that the driver does not > > > allow its resume callbacks to be skipped), or power.may_skip_resume > > > is unset (which means that the subsystem does not allow the > > > driver callbacks to be skipped). > > Are you certain about that? It contradicts what you said earlier, that > MAY_SKIP_RESUME doesn't affect THAW transitions. Yes, MAY_SKIP_RESUME, as well as power.may_skip_resume for that matter, really should not affect the THAW transition at all. I overlooked that when I was writing the above (and earlier). This means that the dev_pm_skip_resume() logic really is relatively straightforward: - If the current transition is RESTORE, return "false". - Otherwise, if the current transition is THAW, return the return value of dev_pm_skip_suspend(). - Otherwise (so the current transition is RESUME which is the only remaining case), return the logical negation of power.must_resume. > Also, it would mean > that a device whose subsystem doesn't know about power.may_skip_resume > would never be allowed to stay in runtime suspend. Not really, because I want the core to set power.may_skip_resume for the devices for which dev_pm_skip_suspend() returns "true" if the "suspend_late" subsystem-level callback is not present. [It might be more consistent to simply set it for all devices for which dev_pm_skip_suspend() returns "true" and let the subsystems update it should they want to? IOW, the default value of power.may_skip_resume could be the return value of dev_pm_skip_suspend()?] > > > > dev_pm_skip_resume() will return "false" if the current > > > > transition is RESTORE or power.must_resume is set. Otherwise: > > > > It will return true if the current transition is THAW, > > > > SMART_SUSPEND is set, and the device's runtime status is > > > > "suspended". > > > > > > The other way around. That is: > > > > > > dev_pm_skip_resume() will return "true" if the current transition is > > > THAW and dev_pm_skip_suspend() returns "true" for that device (so > > > SMART_SUSPEND is set, and the device's runtime status is "suspended", > > > as per the definition of that function above). > > > > The above is what I wanted to say -> > > So for THAW, dev_pm_skip_resume() can return "true" even if > power.must_resume is set? That doesn't seem right. But it cannot be the other way around. For example, invoking ->thaw_early() from the driver without the corresponding ->freeze_late() would be a bug in general, unless they point to the same routines as ->runtime_resume() and ->runtime_suspend() (or equivalent), respectively, but that need not be the case. > > > Otherwise, it will return "true" if the current transition is RESTORE > > > (which means that all devices are resumed) or power.must_resume is not > > > set (so this particular device need not be resumed). > > > > -> but this isn't. In particular, I messed up the RESTORE part, so it > > should read: > > > > Otherwise, it will return "true" if the current transition is *not* > > RESTORE (in which case all devices would be resumed) *and* > > power.must_resume is not set (so this particular device need not be > > resumed). > > > > Sorry about that. > > For the RESTORE and THAW cases that is exactly the same as what I > wrote, apart from the THAW issue noted above. OK then. > > > > It will return "true" if the current transition is > > > > RESUME, SMART_SUSPEND and MAY_SKIP_RESUME are both set, and > > > > the device's runtime status is "suspended". > > > > > > Unless MAY_SKIP_RESUME is unset for at least one of its descendants (or > > > dependent devices). > > > > That should include the power.may_skip_resume flag, so as to read as follows: > > > > Unless MAY_SKIP_RESUME is unset or power.may_skip_resume is unset for > > at least one of its descendants (or dependent devices). > > What about the runtime PM usage counter? Yes, it applies to that too. Of course, if dev_pm_skip_suspend() returns "true", the usage counter cannot be greater than 1 (for the given device as well as for any dependent devices). > > > > For a RESUME > > > > transition, it will also return "true" if MAY_SKIP_RESUME and > > > > power.may_skip_resume are both set, regardless of > > > > SMART_SUSPEND or the current runtime status. > > > > > > And if the device was not in active use before suspend (as per its usage > > > counter) or MAY_SKIP_RESUME is unset for at least one of its descendants (or > > > dependent devices in general). > > > > And analogously here, so what I really should have written is: > > > > And if the device was not in active use before suspend (as per its > > usage counter) or MAY_SKIP_RESUME or power.may_skip_resume is unset > > for at least one of its descendants (or dependent devices in general). > > In other words, for RESUME transitions you want the MAY_SKIP_RESUME and > power.may_skip_resume restrictions to propagate up from dependent > devices. Yes, I do. > And of course, the way to do that is by adding them into the > power.must_resume flag. Right. > How do you want to handle the usage counter restriction. > Should that also propagate upward? Yes, it should. > And how should the result of dev_pm_skip_resume() be affected by > SMART_SUSPEND for RESUME transitions? Not directly, just through power.must_resume. > Maybe this is getting confusing because of the way I organized it. > Let's try like this: > > Transition Conditions for dev_pm_skip_resume() to return "true" > ---------- ---------------------------------------------------- > > RESTORE Never Right. > THAW power.must_resume is clear (which requires > MAY_SKIP_RESUME and power.may_skip_resume to be set and > the runtime usage counter to be = 1, and which > propagates up from dependent devices) > SMART_SUSPEND is set, > runtime status is "suspended" Like I said above: THAW dev_pm_skip_suspend() returns "true". > > RESUME Same as THAW? Or maybe don't require SMART_SUSPEND? > (But if SMART_SUSPEND is clear, how could the runtime > status be "suspended"?) RESUME power.must_resume is clear (which requires MAY_SKIP_RESUME and power.may_skip_resume to be set and the runtime usage counter to be = 1, and which propagates up from dependent devices) Nothing else is really strictly required IMO. > > I can't really tell what you want, because your comments at various > times have been inconsistent. Sorry for the inconsistencies, I hope that it's more clear now. Cheers!