On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 10:31 AM Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 08, 2025 at 06:54:28PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Commit 3775fc538f53 ("PM: sleep: core: Synchronize runtime PM status of
> > parents and children") exposed an issue related to simple_pm_bus_pm_ops
> > that uses pm_runtime_force_suspend() and pm_runtime_force_resume() as
> > bus type PM callbacks for the noirq phases of system-wide suspend and
>
> Despite the name of the driver these are plain device driver PM
> callbacks (not bus PM ops).
Right, I was confused.
BTW, I still think that it is invalid to use
pm_runtime_force_suspend() and pm_runtime_force_resume() as
system-wide PM callbacks without enabling runtime PM. The system-wide
PM callbacks should be wrappers around these checking something (eg.
dev_get_drvdata(dev)) other than dev->power.runtime_status. It is too
fragile the current way.
> > resume.
> >
> > The problem is that pm_runtime_force_suspend() does not distinguish
> > runtime-suspended devices from devices for which runtime PM has never
> > been enabled, so if it sees a device with runtime PM status set to
> > RPM_ACTIVE, it will assume that runtime PM is enabled for that device
> > and so it will attempt to suspend it with the help of its runtime PM
> > callbacks which may not be ready for that. As it turns out, this
> > causes simple_pm_bus_runtime_suspend() to crash due to a NULL pointer
> > dereference.
> >
> > Another problem related to the above commit and simple_pm_bus_pm_ops is
> > that setting runtime PM status of a device handled by the latter to
> > RPM_ACTIVE will actually prevent it from being resumed because
> > pm_runtime_force_resume() only resumes devices with runtime PM status
> > set to RPM_SUSPENDED.
> >
> > To mitigate these issues, do not allow power.set_active to propagate
> > beyond the parent of the device with DPM_FLAG_SMART_SUSPEND set that
> > will need to be resumed, which should be a sufficient stop-gap for the
> > time being, but they will need to be properly addressed in the future
> > because in general during system-wide resume it is necessary to resume
> > all devices in a dependency chain in which at least one device is going
> > to be resumed.
>
> So this works as long as no parent of a device with
> DPM_FLAG_SMART_SUSPEND set is using pm_runtime_force_resume().
>
> This is the case in the systems I work on, but have you
> verified that this is currently generally true? Not many drivers use
> this flag, but it all depends on what their devices' parents' drivers
> do:
>
> drivers/acpi/acpi_tad.c
> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_drv.c
> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
> drivers/mfd/intel-lpss.c
> drivers/pci/pcie/portdrv.c
> drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss-platform.c
> drivers/soundwire/intel_auxdevice.c
>
> Most of these look like ACPI drivers so nothing that would sit directly
> on a simple-pm-bus at least.
I'm not worried about these.
Also, I have a patch series to get the power.set_active propagation
into agreement with pm_runtime_force_suspend/resume(). I'll post it
tomorrow.
