On Tue, 2018-07-17 at 20:32 +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 02:24:31PM -0400, Lyude Paul wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-07-17 at 20:20 +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > > Okay, the PCI device is suspending and the nvkm_i2c_aux_acquire()
> > > wants it in resumed state, so is waiting forever for the device to
> > > runtime suspend in order to resume it again immediately afterwards.
> > >
> > > The deadlock in the stack trace you've posted could be resolved using
> > > the technique I used in d61a5c106351 by adding the following to
> > > include/linux/pm_runtime.h:
> > >
> > > static inline bool pm_runtime_status_suspending(struct device *dev)
> > > {
> > > return dev->power.runtime_status == RPM_SUSPENDING;
> > > }
> > >
> > > static inline bool is_pm_work(struct device *dev)
> > > {
> > > struct work_struct *work = current_work();
> > >
> > > return work && work->func == dev->power.work;
> > > }
> > >
> > > Then adding this to nvkm_i2c_aux_acquire():
> > >
> > > struct device *dev = pad->i2c->subdev.device->dev;
> > >
> > > if (!(is_pm_work(dev) && pm_runtime_status_suspending(dev))) {
> > > ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
> > > if (ret < 0 && ret != -EACCES)
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> > >
> > > But here's the catch: This only works for an *async* runtime suspend.
> > > It doesn't work for pm_runtime_put_sync(), pm_runtime_suspend() etc,
> > > because then the runtime suspend is executed in the context of the caller,
> > > not in the context of dev->power.work.
> > >
> > > So it's not a full solution, but hopefully something that gets you
> > > going. I'm not really familiar with the code paths leading to
> > > nvkm_i2c_aux_acquire() to come up with a full solution off the top
> > > of my head I'm afraid.
> >
> > OK-I was considering doing something similar to that commit beforehand but I
> > wasn't sure if I was going to just be hacking around an actual issue. That
> > doesn't seem to be the case. This is very helpful and hopefully I should be
> > able
> > to figure something out from this, thanks!
>
> In some cases, the function acquiring the runtime PM ref is only called
> from a couple of places and then it would be feasible and appropriate
> to add a bool parameter to the function telling it to acquire the ref
> or not. So the function is told using a parameter which context it's
> running in: In the runtime_suspend code path or some other code path.
>
> The technique to use current_work() is an alternative approach to figure
> out the context if passing in an additional parameter is not feasible
> for some reason. That was the case with d61a5c106351. That approach
> only works for work items though.
Something I'm curious about. This isn't the first time I've hit a situation like
this (see: the improper disable_depth fix I added into amdgpu I now need to go
and fix), which makes me wonder: is there actually any reason Linux's runtime PM
core doesn't just turn get/puts() in the context of s/r callbacks into no-ops by
default?
>
> Lukas
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
