Re: [PATCH 2/2] driver core: Fix possible supplier PM-usage counter imbalance

[Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>]

On 18/02/2019 12:12, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>  On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 5:44 PM Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 15/02/2019 14:37, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 12:00, Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Rafael,
>>>>
>>>> On 12/02/2019 12:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> If a stateless device link to a certain supplier with
>>>>> DL_FLAG_PM_RUNTIME set in the flags is added and then removed by the
>>>>> consumer driver's probe callback, the supplier's PM-runtime usage
>>>>> counter will be nonzero after that which effectively causes the
>>>>> supplier to remain "always on" going forward.
>>>>>
>>>>> Namely, device_link_add() called to add the link invokes
>>>>> device_link_rpm_prepare() which notices that the consumer driver is
>>>>> probing, so it increments the supplier's PM-runtime usage counter
>>>>> with the assumption that the link will stay around until
>>>>> pm_runtime_put_suppliers() is called by driver_probe_device(),
>>>>> but if the link goes away before that point, the supplier's
>>>>> PM-runtime usage counter will remain nonzero.
>>>>>
>>>>> To prevent that from happening, first rework pm_runtime_get_suppliers()
>>>>> and pm_runtime_put_suppliers() to use the rpm_active refounts of device
>>>>> links and make the latter only drop rpm_active and the supplier's
>>>>> PM-runtime usage counter for each link by one, unless rpm_active is
>>>>> one already for it.  Next, modify device_link_add() to bump up the
>>>>> new link's rpm_active refcount and the suppliers PM-runtime usage
>>>>> counter by two, to prevent pm_runtime_put_suppliers(), if it is
>>>>> called subsequently, from suspending the supplier prematurely (in
>>>>> case its PM-runtime usage counter goes down to 0 in there).
>>>>>
>>>>> Due to the way rpm_put_suppliers() works, this change does not
>>>>> affect runtime suspend of the consumer ends of new device links (or,
>>>>> generally, device links for which DL_FLAG_PM_RUNTIME has just been
>>>>> set).
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: e2f3cd831a28 ("driver core: Fix handling of runtime PM flags in device_link_add()")
>>>>> Reported-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that the issue had been there before commit e2f3cd831a28, but it was
>>>>> overlooked by that commit and this change is a fix on top of it, so make
>>>>> the Fixes: tag point to commit e2f3cd831a28 (instead of an earlier one
>>>>> that the patch will not be applicable to).
>>>> I noticed that yesterday's and today's -next were no longer booting on
>>>> one of our Tegra boards (Tegra210 Jetson TX2) because networking is
>>>> failing. The ethernet chip is a USB device and looking at the bootlogs I
>>>> can see that the Tegra XHCI driver is failing ...
>>>>
>>>>  tegra-xusb 70090000.usb: xHCI host controller not responding, assume dead
>>>>  tegra-xusb 70090000.usb: HC died; cleaning up
>>>>
>>>> The Tegra XHCI driver uses multiple power-domains and uses
>>>> device_link_add() to attach them. So now I am wondering if there is
>>>> something that we have got wrong in our implementation. However, I don't
>>>> see the device being probed deferred on boot or anything like that.
>>>>
>>>> The driver in question is drivers/usb/host/xhci-tegra.c and we add the
>>>> links in the function tegra_xusb_powerdomain_init() which is before RPM
>>>> is enabled. Let me know if you have any thoughts.
>>>
>>> If you are willing to help debugging then I am offering my assistance.
>>>
>>> I would start by enabling CONFIG_PM_ADVANCED_DEBUG, which gives you
>>> some more information about the runtime PM state of the device, like
>>> the usage count for example.
>>> I would also add a couple of prints in
>>> tegra_xusb_runtime_suspend|resume() and in the ->power_on|off()
>>> callbacks for the corresponding genpds, to see when those gets called.
>>
>> From the bootlog I see ...
>>
>> [    4.445827] tegra_xusb_runtime_resume-788
>> [    4.508799] tegra-xusb 70090000.usb: Firmware timestamp: 2015-08-10 09:47:54 UTC
> 
> This message comes from tegra_xusb_load_firmware() in
> tegra_xusb_probe() which is after the pm_runtime_get_sync().
> 
> If the device was PM-runtime-suspended before, the
> pm_runtime_get_sync() will runtime-resume and reference-count the
> suppliers in addition to resuming the device.  In that case
> pm_runtime_put_suppliers() will suspend the suppliers, so there is a
> bug in there.
> 
> What happens is that the links are new when pm_runtime_get_sync() runs
> and so their rpm_active refcounts are one.  After the
> pm_runtime_get_sync() they are two and pm_runtime_put_suppliers() will
> drop them by one and drop the PM-runtime usage counter of each of them
> by one, so they will become zero and the suppliers will suspend.
> 
> Passing DL_FLAG_RPM_ACTIVE to device_link_add() should help, but IMO
> things should also work without that.

I can confirm that DL_FLAG_RPM_ACTIVE does indeed work. I assume though
this would prevent the suppliers from ever being suspended, which maybe
we will want to do eventually.

>> [    4.516223] tegra-xusb 70090000.usb: xHCI Host Controller
>> [    4.521622] tegra-xusb 70090000.usb: new USB bus registered, assigned bus number 1
> 
> This comes from usb_add_hcd()
> 
>> [    4.530087] tegra-xusb 70090000.usb: hcc params 0x0184f525 hci version 0x100 quirks 0x0000000000010010
>> [    4.539398] tegra-xusb 70090000.usb: irq 69, io mem 0x70090000
>> [    4.553671] tegra-xusb 70090000.usb: xHCI Host Controller
>> [    4.559064] tegra-xusb 70090000.usb: new USB bus registered, assigned bus number 2
> 
> Like this.
> 
>> [    4.566622] tegra-xusb 70090000.usb: Host supports USB 3.0  SuperSpeed
> 
> And this if from xhci_gen_setup(), so probe returns around this point.
> 
>> [    4.595393] tegra-pmc: tegra_genpd_power_off-673: xusbc
>> [    4.600672] tegra-pmc: tegra_genpd_power_off-673: xusba
> 
> And this appears to be done by pm_runtime_put_suppliers().
> 
> Hmm, I need to think how to fix this.  Maybe we'll need to revert
> $subject patch and do something else, we'll see (later today).

OK, thanks. Let me know if there is anything else I can test.

Cheers
Jon

-- 
nvpublic