On Saturday, August 04, 2012, Alan Stern wrote: > On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > What happens if a system sleep begins after > > > pm_runtime_async_resume_and_call() but before the runtime resume? When > > > the system wakes up, the device will be back at full power without ever > > > executing a runtime PM call. Then how will func get invoked? > > > > The pm_runtime_barrier() at the beginning of __device_suspend() guarantees > > that if there's a resume request pending at this point, the resume will be > > carried out. I think we can modify rpm_resume() to return only after func() > > is executed, so there shouldn't be a problem with that particular case. > > A resume request can get added to the workqueue after > __device_suspend() runs, in which case the problem will still exist. In theory. But the question is who's going to add that request, since the driver's (and possibly subsystem's/PM domain's) .suspend() callbacks will be run by __device_suspend() and we can expect those to ensure certain level of consistency. Anyway, today we'll have the same problem with a runtime resume request queued up during system suspend (after __device_suspend() has run). > Should pm_runtime_set_active() call func (if such a call is pending)? > > > > What happens if the driver is unbound after > > > pm_runtime_async_resume_and_call() but before the runtime resume? The > > > When the runtime resume occurs, func will be invoked -- and the driver > > > might not even be in memory any more. > > > > We have no protection against that at the moment, but then there is no > > guarantee that the driver's runtime PM callbacks won't be run after > > it's been unbound. > > True. We have been relying on the subsystem to handle this race, but > obviously that's no good if the callback is directly to the driver. I > don't see any way to fix this in the PM core. Me neither. > > Perhaps we should run pm_runtime_barrier() before executing .remove() > > in __device_release_driver() > > We already do pm_runtime_get_sync() and pm_runtime_put_sync(). I'm not > sure how necessary those calls really are ... They are, because some platforms do some unusual things in their platform bus type notifiers. > but pm_runtime_barrier() would be redundant. > > > (and perhaps run pm_runtime_idle() afterwards > > in case the subsystem or PM domain knows how to power down the device even if > > there's no driver) and expect .remove() to clean up? > > I can't think of anything wrong with calling pm_runtime_idle() at the > end of __device_release_driver(). Yeah. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
