On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 6:45 AM Ajay Agarwal <ajayagarwal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 11:07:19AM +0530, Ajay Agarwal wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 09:23:18PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 4:49 AM Ajay Agarwal <ajayagarwal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 08:29:34PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 11:21 PM Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Ajay,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 09:02:41AM +0530, Ajay Agarwal wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 06:31:48PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 10:08 AM Oliver Neukum <oneukum@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 26.07.22 17:41, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Well, in general suspending or resuming a device is a collaborative
> > > > > > > > > > effort and if one of the pieces falls over, making it work again
> > > > > > > > > > involves fixing up the failing piece and notifying the others that it
> > > > > > > > > > is ready again. However, that part isn't covered and I'm not sure if
> > > > > > > > > > it can be covered in a sufficiently generic way.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > True. But that still cannot solve the question what is to be done
> > > > > > > > > if error handling fails. Hence my proposal:
> > > > > > > > > - record all failures
> > > > > > > > > - heed the record only when suspending
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I guess that would boil down to moving the power.runtime_error update
> > > > > > > > from rpm_callback() to rpm_suspend()?
> > > > > > > Resuming this discussion. One of the ways the device drivers are
> > > > > > > clearing the runtime_error flag is by calling pm_runtime_set_suspended
> > > > > > > [1].
> > > > >
> > > > > I personally think that jumping on a 2.5 years old thread is not a
> > > > > good idea. It would be better to restate the problem statement and
> > > > > provide the link to the previous discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > To me, it feels weird that a device driver calls pm_runtime_set_suspended
> > > > > > > if the runtime_resume() has failed. It should be implied that the device
> > > > > > > is in suspended state if the resume failed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So how really should the runtime_error flag be cleared? Should there be
> > > > > > > a new API exposed to device drivers for this? Or should we plan for it
> > > > > > > in the framework itself?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > While the API naming is unclear, that's exactly what
> > > > > > pm_runtime_set_suspended() is about. Personally, I find it nice when a
> > > > > > driver adds the comment "clear runtime_error flag", because otherwise
> > > > > > it's not really obvious why a driver has to take care of "suspending"
> > > > > > after a failed resume. But that's not the biggest question here, IMO.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The real reson I pointed you at this thread was because I think it's
> > > > > > useful to pursue the proposal above: to avoid setting a persistent
> > > > > > "runtime_error" for resume failures. This seems to just create a pitfall
> > > > > > for clients, as asked by Vincent and Oliver upthread.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And along this line, there are relatively few drivers that actually
> > > > > > bother to reset this error flag ever (e.g., commit f2bc2afe34c1
> > > > > > ("accel/ivpu: Clear runtime_error after pm_runtime_resume_and_get()
> > > > > > fails")).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So to me, we should simply answer Rafael's question:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (repeated:)
> > > > > > > > I guess that would boil down to moving the power.runtime_error update
> > > > > > > > from rpm_callback() to rpm_suspend()?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, I think so. (Although I'm not sure if this leaves undesirable spam
> > > > > > where persistent .runtime_resume() failures occur.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...and then write/test/submit such a patch, provided it achieves the
> > > > > > desired results.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unless of course one of the thread participants here has some other
> > > > > > update in the intervening 2.5 years, or if Rafael was simply asking the
> > > > > > above rhetorically, and wasn't actually interested in fielding such a
> > > > > > change.
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason why runtime_error is there is to prevent runtime PM
> > > > > callbacks from being run until something is done about the error,
> > > > > under the assumption that running them in that case may make the
> > > > > problem worse.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure if I see a substantial difference between suspend and
> > > > > resume in that respect: If any of them fails, the state of the device
> > > > > is kind of unstable. In particular, if resume fails and the device
> > > > > doesn't actually resume, something needs to be done about it or it
> > > > > just becomes unusable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, the way of clearing the error may not be super-convenient, which
> > > > > was a bit hard to figure out upfront, so I'm not against making any
> > > > > changes as long as there are sufficient reasons for making them.
> > > >
> > > > I am thinking if we can start with a change to not check runtime_error
> > > > in rpm_resume, and let it go through even if the previous rpm_resume
> > > > attempt failed. Something like this:
> > > >
> > > > ```
> > > > static int rpm_resume(struct device *dev, int rpmflags)
> > > > trace_rpm_resume(dev, rpmflags);
> > > >
> > > > repeat:
> > > > - if (dev->power.runtime_error) {
> > > > - retval = -EINVAL;
> > > > - } else if (dev->power.disable_depth > 0) {
> > > > + if (dev->power.disable_depth > 0) {
> > > > if (dev->power.runtime_status == RPM_ACTIVE &&
> > > > dev->power.last_status == RPM_ACTIVE)
> > > > retval = 1;
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > I think setting the runtime_error in rpm_callback, i.e. for both resume
> > > > and suspend is still a good idea for book-keeping purposes, e.g. the
> > > > user reading the runtime_status of the device from sysfs.
> > >
> > > What would be the benefit of this change?
> > The benefit would be that the runtime_resume would be re-attempted even if
> > the previous attempt failed.
>
> Actually, I wanted to propose the removal of `runtime_error` flag
> completely from the code.
Why?
> But it sounded too disruptive to me. Hence, I
> proposed the milder patch of removal of `runtime_error` check from
> rpm_resume so that the drivers do not have to call
> `pm_runtime_set_suspended` explicitly.
>
> Basically, we still do not have a good solution for the situation where
> one of the ancestors fails to resume.
If an ancestor fails to resume, runtime_error is not set for the
device at hand. rpm_resume() returns -EBUSY without setting
runtime_error in that case.
> We do not know how to make the
> ancestor working again.
That's true, but poking at it again and again may not work either.
> But I guess a re-attempt is better than not
> doing anything about it?
I would start with changing rpm_callback() to avoid setting
runtime_error if the retval is -EBUSY or -EAGAIN, to make rpm_resume()
work consistently with rpm_suspend() in that respect. Then, no
corrective action would be needed after returning one of these from
the callback. I'll send a patch for this shortly.
-EACCES is kind of a grey area. It is converted to -EIO, but then it
indicates an error that can be corrected outside the driver and is not
related to the hardware, so it should be OK to avoid setting
runtime_error in that case either, but then it might be better to
convert it to -EAGAIN.
Returning any other error codes indicates a hardware issue, however,
and those should be corrected by the driver handling the given piece
of hardware.
