[PATCH v2 0/4] PM / Domains: Fix race conditions during boot

Ulf Hansson ulf.hansson at linaro.org
Fri Oct 3 02:47:37 PDT 2014

On 3 October 2014 03:14, Kevin Hilman <khilman at kernel.org> wrote:
> Ulf, Rafael,
> Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson at linaro.org> writes:
>> When there are more than one device in a PM domain these will obviously
>> be probed at different times. Depending on timing and the implemented
>> support for runtime PM in a driver/subsystem, genpd may be advised to
>> power off a PM domain after a successful probe sequence.
>> Ideally we should have relied on the driver/subsystem, through runtime
>> PM, to bring their device's PM domain into powered state prior doing
>> probing if such requirement exist.
> I think I've stumbled on a related problem, or maybe the same one.
> Even if platform-specific init code has initialized a device with
> pm_runtime_set_active(), it seems that the genpd domain can still
> power off before before all of its devices are probed.
> This is because pm_genpd_poweroff() requires there to be a driver
> when it's checking if a device is pm_runtime_suspended() which will not
> be the case if the driver has not been probed yet.
> Consider this case: There are several devices in the domain that haven't
> been probed yet (dev->driver == NULL), but have been marked with
> pm_runtime_set_active() + _get_noresume(), so pm_runtime_suspended() == false.

I haven't seen this kind of set up before. Are you invoking
pm_runtime_enable() here as well?

I am not sure pm_runtime_get_noresume() is a good idea, since that
will prevent the device from going inactive - even after the driver
has probed it. Unless the driver do pm_runtime_put_sync twice of
course. :-)

On the other hand, if you have done pm_runtime_enable() your certainly
need to prevent the device some going inactive...

> Then, one of devices is in the domain is probed, and during the probe it
> does a _get_sync(), sets some stuff up, and then does _put_sync().
> After the probe, because of the _put_sync(), the genpd
> ->runtime_suspend() will be triggered, causing it to attempt a
> _genpd_poweroff().  Since the rest of the devices in the domain haven't
> (yet) been probed, their dev->driver pointers are all still NULL, so the
> pm_runtime_suspended() check will not be attempted for them.
> The result is that the genpd will poweroff after the first device is
> probed, but before the others have had a chance to probe, which is not
> exactly desired behavior for a genpd that has been initialized as
> powered on.
> With the hack below[1], I'm able to avoid that problem, but am not
> completely sure yet if this is safe in general.
> Rafael, do you remember why that check for dev->driver is needed?
> Without digging deeper (which I'll do tomorrow), seems to me that
> checking pm_runtime_suspended() on devices without drivers is a
> reasonable thing to do since they can be initailzed by platform code
> before they are probed.   If you think this is OK, I'll cook up a real
> patch with a changelog.
> Ulf, I'm not sure if this is the same problem you're having, but do you
> think this would solve your problem if the drivers are properly
> initialized?

Unfortunately no.

I am using the DT initialization path so all my devices aren't being
added to the PM domain before drivers starts to probe them.

Instead they are added when each device gets probed, thus the PM
domain can still power off between devices being probed.

> Kevin
> [1]
> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/domain.c b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> index 568bf3172bef..17b0d9466d98 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> @@ -471,7 +471,7 @@ static int pm_genpd_poweroff(struct
> generic_pm_domain *genpd)
>                 if (stat > PM_QOS_FLAGS_NONE)
>                         return -EBUSY;
> -               if (pdd->dev->driver && (!pm_runtime_suspended(pdd->dev)
> +               if ((!pm_runtime_suspended(pdd->dev)
>                     || pdd->dev->power.irq_safe))
>                         not_suspended++;
>         }
> --

Kind regards

More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list