On Friday, October 08, 2010, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Thursday, October 07, 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
> >> On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> >>
> >> > My confusion is not about the use of spinlocks, it's a question of what
> >> > is being busy-waited for, and the thread that is being waited for is
> >> > going to complete when interrupts are disabled.
> >> >
> >> > Sorry to be dense, but can you (re)summarize what you're proposing as I
> >> > think I'm getting mixed up with all the various options we've been
> >> > tossing around.
> >> >
> >> > If it can work, I'm certainly in favor of a busy-wait approach as it
> >> > really ensures that sync requests are handled quickly.
> >>
> >> Okay, here's the story in a nutshell. Allowing a subsystem's or
> >> driver's runtime-PM callbacks to run with interrupts disabled faces two
> >> obstacles:
> >>
> >> (1): We don't want two different CPUs to run callbacks for the
> >> same device at the same time. So if a callback is already
> >> running on one CPU (i.e., if the device's runtime status is
> >> either SUSPENDING or RESUMING) then another CPU can't be
> >> allowed to invoke a callback.
> >>
> >> Thus, you can't do a synchronous pm_runtime_resume_irq()
> >> if the device is in the middle of a suspend or resume
> >> operation. We're left with two choices: Fail the synchronous
> >> call and force the driver to defer matters to a workqueue
> >> (possibly masking an IRQ line in the meantime), or busy-wait
> >> until the concurrent operation finishes.
> >>
> >> If the PM core simply avoids releasing dev->power.lock before
> >> invoking the runtime_suspend or runtime_resume callback, the
> >> end result is almost the same as with busy-waiting.
> >
> > This is slightly more complicated, because suspend is a bit different from
> > resume. I think it's generally acceptable to refuse to do a "fast path" suspend
> > if the device state is not RPM_ACTIVE at the moment, but refusing to do
> > a "fast path" resume may be more problematic (more on that later).
> >
> >> (2): In general we can't resume a device if its parent is suspended.
> >> If the parent's runtime_resume routine needs to run with
> >> interrupts enabled then there's no way to resume the device
> >> while keeping interrupts disabled.
> >>
> >> Possible solutions involve, again, deferring matters to a
> >> workqueue, or else simply not allowing the situation to arise
> >> in the first place (forbid a device to have interrupt-disabled
> >> callbacks unless its parent does too or the parent doesn't use
> >> runtime PM at all).
> >>
> >> In general I'm against the solutions that require a workqueue.
> >
> > OK
> >
> >> Raphael appears to favor workqueues for (1) and be against them for (2).
> >
> > The particular case we need to handle (I think) is that some devices need to be
> > resumed "atomically" as a part of bringing a CPU package out of a C-like-state
> > (Kevin, is that correct?).
>
> Correct, but there is more than one problematic case.
>
> Another problem is in devices that are not atomic with C-states, but
> receive wakeup IRQs while they're suspended and thus need to
> pm_runtime_get() from their ISRs, without having an essentially
> unbounded interrupt latency before the ISR can be handled.
>
> Consider the following sequence for a given device
>
> - device: ->runtime_suspend() /* registers not accessible */
> - pm_idle
> - IRQs disabled
> - idle
> - wakeup event
> - idle loop finishes
> - IRQs enabled
> - device: ->runtime_resume()
>
> Now, consider the 'wakeup event' is an IRQ for that device. That means
> as soon as IRQs are (re)enabled (and before some other activity has
> triggered a ->runtime_resume), the device's ISR is called. Since it is
> RPM_SUSPENDED, it's registers are not accessible so it needs to do a
> pm_runtime_get().
>
> The case that raised this initially was a GPIO IRQ demux, where the
> initial ISR is just a chained handler whichfigures out which GPIO
> fired and then call genirq for that IRQ.
>
> All that being said, while I've currently described these as two
> different problems, the second one could be solved by converting it to
> the first one. IOW, make GPIO be one of those devices that are
> suspended/resumed atomically with the CPU so that it is guaranteed to be
> awake when IRQs are re-enabled.
>
> While that would work, I've been trying to move in the opposite
> direction by trying to dis-connect them from CPU idle.
>
> > In that case not only we can't defer the resume (by
> > using a workqueue), but also we have to finish the resume within strict time
> > constraints (the time to leave the given C-like-state is one of the parameters
> > used by cpuidle governors to decide which state to choose).
> >
> > On the other hand, busy waiting (by looping) in the case the state is
> > RPM_RESUMING is as though the callbacks were executed under a spinlock and we
> > happened to wait on it. I'd prefer to avoid that. Moreover, if the state is
> > RPM_SUSPENDING at the time a "fast path" resume is started, we are almost
> > guaranteed to violate the time constraints (by busy waiting for the suspend to
> > complete and carrying out the resume).
> >
> > So, here's an idea:
> >
> > First, let's introduce two flags in struct dev_pm_info, irq_safe and
> > fast_resume. The former has to be set so that the things above work.
> >
> > Second, let's add a new flag to pass to __pm_runtime_{suspend|resume}(),
> > RPM_FAST_RESUME such that if it is passed to __pm_runtime_suspend(), it
> > causes fast_resume to be set for the given device (if the status is already
> > RPM_SUSPENDED, it just sets the flag, otherwise it suspends the device
> > normally and then sets the flag). Now, if fast_resume is set,
> > __pm_runtime_resume() has to be passed RPM_FAST_RESUME, or it will
> > fail (it also will fail if passed RPM_FAST_RESUME and fast_resume isn't
> > set). In that case the status has to be RPM_SUSPENDED or RPM_RESUMING
> > (otherwise fast_resume won't be set) and if it is RPM_RESUMING, this means
> > that the other resume has been called with RPM_FAST_RESUME too (it would
> > fail otherwise), so it's fine to busy loop until the status is RPM_SUSPENDED
> > (it's the caller's problem to avoid that). RPM_FAST_RESUME causes
> > __pm_runtime_resume() to avod turning interrupts on.
> >
> > If necessary, there may be a flag for __pm_runtime_suspend() that will
> > carry out "atomic" suspend, but I'm not sure if that's necessary. Kevin?
>
> I think we'll need both "atomic" suspend & resume.
>
> One of the devices I'm currently managing in this atomic fashion (inside
> pm_idle) is the UARTs (of course, I'm not currently using runtime PM for
> this, I'm calling platform-specific hooks directly since IRQs are
> disabled.) For the UARTs I'm using both atomic suspend and resume,
> primarily for debug so I am sure UARTs are awake to see any panics
> during the last parts of the suspend/idle process and the early parts of
> the resume path. This UART case is a bit of a hack until the driver is
> converted to runtime PM, but illustrates some debug related reasons we
> might also need atomic suspend and resume.
>
> We also have some workarounds for hardware errata that require
> putting certain devices in a specific state just before (and after)
> idle. The drivers for these devices will need both suspend and resume.
OK, thanks for the info.
Do you need "normal" resume to work after "atomic" suspend, or is it
sufficient that "atomic" suspend will require "atomic" resume?
Rafael
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
