Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 3 March 2017 at 21:41, Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Notify runtime PM when the CPU is going to be powered off in the idle
>> state. This allows for runtime PM suspend/resume of the CPU as well as
>> its PM domain.
>>
>> Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@xxxxxxxxxx>
[...]
>> @@ -99,6 +102,7 @@ int cpu_pm_enter(void)
>> {
>> int nr_calls;
>> int ret = 0;
>> + struct device *dev = get_cpu_device(smp_processor_id());
>>
>> read_lock(&cpu_pm_notifier_lock);
>> ret = cpu_pm_notify(CPU_PM_ENTER, -1, &nr_calls);
>> @@ -110,6 +114,10 @@ int cpu_pm_enter(void)
>> cpu_pm_notify(CPU_PM_ENTER_FAILED, nr_calls - 1, NULL);
>> read_unlock(&cpu_pm_notifier_lock);
>>
>> + /* Notify Runtime PM that we are suspending the CPU */
>> + if (!ret && dev)
>> + RCU_NONIDLE(pm_runtime_put_sync_suspend(dev));
>> +
>
> I am trying to understand how the runtime PM usage count becomes
> properly balanced.
>
> I believe you could you end up first calling a
> pm_runtime_put_sync_suspend(), without earlier having called
> pm_runtime_get*(). I am not sure though, but perhaps you can
> elaborate.
>
> Anyway, in patch2/9, where you enable runtime PM there is only a call
> to pm_runtime_set_active(), which doesn't increase the usage count. To
> me, it seems like that change also needs a pm_runtime_get_noresume().
IIUC, the CPU hotplug callback below (cpu_pm_cpu_starting) will do the
first _get_sync(), and I'm assuming that will happen before any of the
CPU PM notifiers get called, so I think the usecount will always be at
least 1 by the time any CPU PM callbacks happen.
[...]
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
>> +static int cpu_pm_cpu_dying(unsigned int cpu)
>> +{
>> + struct device *dev = get_cpu_device(cpu);
>> +
>> + if (dev)
>> + pm_runtime_put_sync_suspend(dev);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int cpu_pm_cpu_starting(unsigned int cpu)
>> +{
>> + struct device *dev = get_cpu_device(cpu);
>> +
>> + if (dev)
>> + pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
>
> I assume that according to my comment above, you somehow need to
> compensate for either of the cases when CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU is set or
> unset. Right?
Right, if for some reason CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU=n, we'll have a problem
where there is never an initial _get() so the usecount will be zero when
CPU PM notifiers get called the first time.
Kevin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
