From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757003AbcLRQhW (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Dec 2016 11:37:22 -0500 Received: from mailout3.hostsharing.net ([176.9.242.54]:37079 "EHLO mailout3.hostsharing.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752597AbcLRQhV (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Dec 2016 11:37:21 -0500 Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 17:37:25 +0100 From: Lukas Wunner To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Linux PM list , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Alan Stern , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Tomeu Vizoso , Mark Brown , Marek Szyprowski , Kevin Hilman , Ulf Hansson , "Luis R. Rodriguez" Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] PM / runtime: Use device links Message-ID: <20161218163725.GA13273@wunner.de> References: <27296716.H9VWo8ShOm@vostro.rjw.lan> <11468990.WB1J8sxXpS@vostro.rjw.lan> <5653461.FkScaTIbLn@vostro.rjw.lan> <20161218140122.GA13141@wunner.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 04:53:26PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Lukas Wunner wrote: > > Hi Rafael, > > > > spotted what looks like a bug in the device links runtime PM code: > > > > When resuming a device, __rpm_callback() calls rpm_get_suppliers(dev): > > > >> + retval = rpm_get_suppliers(dev); > >> + if (retval) > >> + goto fail; > > > > > > This will walk the list of suppliers and call pm_runtime_get_sync() > > for each of them: > > > >> +static int rpm_get_suppliers(struct device *dev) > >> +{ > >> + struct device_link *link; > >> + > >> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(link, &dev->links.suppliers, c_node) { > >> + int retval; > > [...] > >> + retval = pm_runtime_get_sync(link->supplier); > >> + if (retval < 0) { > >> + pm_runtime_put_noidle(link->supplier); > >> + return retval; > > > > > > If pm_runtime_get_sync() failed, e.g. because runtime PM is disabled > > on a supplier, the function will put the reference of the failed > > supplier and return. > > > > Back in __rpm_callback() we jump to the fail mark, where we call > > rpm_put_suppliers(). > > > >> + fail: > >> + rpm_put_suppliers(dev); > >> + > >> + device_links_read_unlock(idx); > > > > > > This walks the list of suppliers and releases a ref for each of them: > > > >> +static void rpm_put_suppliers(struct device *dev) > >> +{ > >> + struct device_link *link; > >> + > >> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(link, &dev->links.suppliers, c_node) > >> + if (link->rpm_active && > >> + READ_ONCE(link->status) != DL_STATE_SUPPLIER_UNBIND) { > >> + pm_runtime_put(link->supplier); > >> + link->rpm_active = false; > >> + } > >> +} > > > > > > This looks wrong: We've already put a ref on the failed supplier, so here > > we're putting another one. > > Are we? I would think link->rpm_active would be false for the failed > one, wouldn't it? Ah, so link->rpm_active means the consumer is holding a ref on the supplier. Missed that, sorry for the false alarm and thanks for the clarification. Lukas