From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: zhanglong <longzhax@intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com,
Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
"linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org"
<linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
Yanmin Zhang <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drivers-core: move the calling to device_pm_remove behind the calling to bus_remove_device
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 00:33:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2349638.6Av6Qi7uZi@vostro.rjw.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121024221327.GA23353@kroah.com>
On Wednesday 24 of October 2012 15:13:27 Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 09:46:19PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday 16 of October 2012 23:28:08 zhanglong wrote:
> > > We hit an hang issue when removing a mmc device on Medfield Android phone by sysfs interface.
> > >
> > > device_pm_remove will call pm_runtime_remove which would disable
> > > runtime PM of the device. After that pm_runtime_get* or
> > > pm_runtime_put* will be ignored. So if we disable the runtime PM
> > > before device really be removed, drivers' _remove callback may
> > > access HW even pm_runtime_get* fails. That is bad.
> > >
> > > Consider below call sequence when removing a device:
> > > device_del => device_pm_remove
> > > => class_intf->remove_dev(dev, class_intf) => pm_runtime_get_sync/put_sync
> > > => bus_remove_device => device_release_driver => pm_runtime_get_sync/put_sync
> > >
> > > remove_dev might call pm_runtime_get_sync/put_sync.
> > > Then, generic device_release_driver also calls pm_runtime_get_sync/put_sync.
> > > Since device_del => device_pm_remove firstly, later _get_sync wouldn't really wake up the device.
> > >
> > > I git log -p to find the patch which moves the calling to device_pm_remove ahead.
> > > It's below patch:
> > >
> > > commit 775b64d2b6ca37697de925f70799c710aab5849a
> > > Author: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> > > Date: Sat Jan 12 20:40:46 2008 +0100
> > >
> > > PM: Acquire device locks on suspend
> > >
> > > This patch reorganizes the way suspend and resume notifications are
> > > sent to drivers. The major changes are that now the PM core acquires
> > > every device semaphore before calling the methods, and calls to
> > > device_add() during suspends will fail, while calls to device_del()
> > > during suspends will block.
> > >
> > > It also provides a way to safely remove a suspended device with the
> > > help of the PM core, by using the device_pm_schedule_removal() callback
> > > introduced specifically for this purpose, and updates two drivers (msr
> > > and cpuid) that need to use it.
> > >
> > >
> > > As device_pm_schedule_removal is deleted by another patch, we need also revert other parts of the patch,
> > > i.e. move the calling of device_pm_remove after the calling to bus_remove_device.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: LongX Zhang <longx.zhang@intel.com>
> >
> > Greg, do you see any potential problems with this patch?
>
> No, no objection from me:
>
> Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
OK, thanks!
Applied to linux-pm.git/linux-next as v3.8 material.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-24 22:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-16 15:28 [PATCH v2] drivers-core: move the calling to device_pm_remove behind the calling to bus_remove_device zhanglong
2012-10-22 1:01 ` Yanmin Zhang
2012-10-24 19:46 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-10-24 22:13 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2012-10-24 22:33 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2012-10-25 0:20 ` Yanmin Zhang
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=2349638.6Av6Qi7uZi@vostro.rjw.lan \
--to=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=longzhax@intel.com \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.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).