On Friday, April 22, 2011, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > The subsystem should be smart enough to handle runtime PM requests while
> > > the driver's remove callback is running.
> >
> > If we make such a rule, we may as well remove all of the runtime PM
> > calls from __device_release_driver().
> >
> > > > I think the current code is better than any of the alternatives considered
> > > > so far.
> > >
> > > Then you think Guennadi should leave his patch as it is, including the
> > > "reversed" put/get?
> >
> > This, or we need to remove the runtime PM calls from __device_release_driver().
>
> Let's go back to first principles. The underlying problem we want to
> solve is that runtime PM callbacks race with driver unbinding. In a
> worst-case scenario, a driver module might be unbound and unloaded from
> memory and then a runtime PM callback could occur, causing an invalid
> memory access.
>
> Related to this is the fact that some drivers want to use runtime PM
> from within their remove routines. This implies that the PM core
> shouldn't simply disallow all runtime PM callbacks during unbinding.
>
> As it happens, the PM core doesn't call drivers' runtime PM routines
> directly. Instead it calls bus, type, class, and power-domain
> routines -- which may in turn invoke the driver routines.
>
> Put together, this all suggests that the PM core can't solve the
> underlying problem and shouldn't try. Instead, it should be up to the
> subsystems to insure they don't make invalid callbacks. For example,
> the USB subsystem does this by explicitly doing pm_runtime_get_sync()
> before unbinding a driver. Other subsystems would want to use a
> different approach.
>
> If we add this requirement then yes, it would make sense to remove the
> get_noresume and put_sync calls from __device_release_driver(). We
> probably want to keep the barrier, though.
>
> > I'm a bit worried about the driver_sysfs_remove() and the bus notifier that
> > in theory may affect the runtime PM callbacks potentially executed before
> > ->remove() is called.
>
> The driver_sysfs_remove() call merely gets rid of a couple of symlinks
> in sysfs. I don't think that will impact runtime PM.
>
> The bus notifier might, however.
Not only it might, but it actually does. There are platforms currently in
the ARM tree where the runtime PM hadling of devices is set up and cleaned up
by the bus notifier, so after the notifier has run the device will be handled
differently.
> Perhaps the barrier should be moved down, after the notifier call.
> How does this patch look?
>
> drivers/base/dd.c | 6 +-----
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> Index: usb-2.6/drivers/base/dd.c
> ===================================================================
> --- usb-2.6.orig/drivers/base/dd.c
> +++ usb-2.6/drivers/base/dd.c
> @@ -316,15 +316,13 @@ static void __device_release_driver(stru
>
> drv = dev->driver;
> if (drv) {
> - pm_runtime_get_noresume(dev);
> - pm_runtime_barrier(dev);
> -
> driver_sysfs_remove(dev);
>
> if (dev->bus)
> blocking_notifier_call_chain(&dev->bus->p->bus_notifier,
> BUS_NOTIFY_UNBIND_DRIVER,
> dev);
> + pm_runtime_barrier(dev);
The barrier would not prevent the race between the notifier and runtie PM
from taking place. Why don't we do something like this instead:
---
drivers/base/dd.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-2.6/drivers/base/dd.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/base/dd.c
+++ linux-2.6/drivers/base/dd.c
@@ -326,6 +326,8 @@ static void __device_release_driver(stru
BUS_NOTIFY_UNBIND_DRIVER,
dev);
+ pm_runtime_put_sync(dev);
+
if (dev->bus && dev->bus->remove)
dev->bus->remove(dev);
else if (drv->remove)
@@ -338,7 +340,6 @@ static void __device_release_driver(stru
BUS_NOTIFY_UNBOUND_DRIVER,
dev);
- pm_runtime_put_sync(dev);
}
}
That should eliminate the race between the notifier and runtime PM and still
allow the bus/driver to use runtime PM in the ->remove() callbacks.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
