[PATCH v12 1/2] scsi: ufs: Enable power management for wlun
Asutosh Das (asd)
asutoshd at codeaurora.org
Thu Mar 25 02:14:53 GMT 2021
On 3/23/2021 12:19 PM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 23/03/21 5:13 pm, Asutosh Das (asd) wrote:
>> On 3/22/2021 11:12 PM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>> On 22/03/21 9:53 pm, Asutosh Das (asd) wrote:
>>>> On 3/19/2021 10:47 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>>>> On 19/03/21 2:35 am, Asutosh Das wrote:
>>>>>> During runtime-suspend of ufs host, the scsi devices are
>>>>>> already suspended and so are the queues associated with them.
>>>>>> But the ufs host sends SSU to wlun during its runtime-suspend.
>>>>>> During the process blk_queue_enter checks if the queue is not in
>>>>>> suspended state. If so, it waits for the queue to resume, and never
>>>>>> comes out of it.
>>>>>> The commit
>>>>>> (d55d15a33: scsi: block: Do not accept any requests while suspended)
>>>>>> adds the check if the queue is in suspended state in blk_queue_enter().
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Call trace:
>>>>>> __switch_to+0x174/0x2c4
>>>>>> __schedule+0x478/0x764
>>>>>> schedule+0x9c/0xe0
>>>>>> blk_queue_enter+0x158/0x228
>>>>>> blk_mq_alloc_request+0x40/0xa4
>>>>>> blk_get_request+0x2c/0x70
>>>>>> __scsi_execute+0x60/0x1c4
>>>>>> ufshcd_set_dev_pwr_mode+0x124/0x1e4
>>>>>> ufshcd_suspend+0x208/0x83c
>>>>>> ufshcd_runtime_suspend+0x40/0x154
>>>>>> ufshcd_pltfrm_runtime_suspend+0x14/0x20
>>>>>> pm_generic_runtime_suspend+0x28/0x3c
>>>>>> __rpm_callback+0x80/0x2a4
>>>>>> rpm_suspend+0x308/0x614
>>>>>> rpm_idle+0x158/0x228
>>>>>> pm_runtime_work+0x84/0xac
>>>>>> process_one_work+0x1f0/0x470
>>>>>> worker_thread+0x26c/0x4c8
>>>>>> kthread+0x13c/0x320
>>>>>> ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fix this by registering ufs device wlun as a scsi driver and
>>>>>> registering it for block runtime-pm. Also make this as a
>>>>>> supplier for all other luns. That way, this device wlun
>>>>>> suspends after all the consumers and resumes after
>>>>>> hba resumes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Co-developed-by: Can Guo <cang at codeaurora.org>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Can Guo <cang at codeaurora.org>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Asutosh Das <asutoshd at codeaurora.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have some more comments that may help straighten things out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also please look at ufs_debugfs_get_user_access() and
>>>>> ufs_debugfs_put_user_access() that now need to scsi_autopm_get/put_device
>>>>> sdev_ufs_device.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would also be good if you could re-base on linux-next.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Adrian
>>>> Thanks for the comments.
>>>>
>>>> I agree moving the code to wlun probe and other changes.
>>>> But it looks to me that it may not fully solve the issue.
>>>>
>>>> Please let me explain my understanding on this:
>>>>
>>>> (Please refer to the logs in v10)
>>>> scsi_autopm_*() are invoked on a sdev.
>>>> pm_runtime_get_suppliers()/rpm_put_suppliers() are on the supplier device.
>>>>
>>>> For the device wlun:
>>>> slave_configure():
>>>> - doesn't set the rpm_autosuspend
>>>> - pm_runtime_getnoresume()
>>>> scsi_sysfs_add_sdev():
>>>> - pm_runtime_forbid()
>>>> - scsi_autopm_get_device()
>>>> - device_add()
>>>> - ufshcd_wl_probe()
>>>> - scsi_autopm_put_device()
>>>>
>>>> For all other scsi devices:
>>>> slave_alloc():
>>>> - ufshcd_setup_links()
>>>> Say all link_add: pm_runtime_put(&hba->sdev_ufs_device->sdev_gendev);
>>>
>>> With DL_FLAG_RPM_ACTIVE, links will 'get' not 'put'
>>>
>> I'm referring to the pm_runtime_put(sdev_ufs_device) after all the links are setup, that you suggested to add.
>
> Ok
>
>>>> slave_configure():
>>>> - set rpm_autosuspend
>>>> scsi_sysfs_add_sdev():
>>>> - scsi_autopm_get_device()
>>>> - device_add() -> schedules an async probe()
>>>> - scsi_autopm_put_device() - (1)
>>>>
>>>> Now the rpm_put_suppliers() can be invoked *after* pm_runtime_get_suppliers() of the async probe(), since both are running in different contexts.
>>>
>>> Only if the sd device suspends.
>>>
>> Correct. What'd stop the sd device from suspending?
>> We should be stopping the sd device from suspending here - imho.
>
Hi Adrian,
Thanks for the comments.
> You mean for performance reasons. That is something we can
> look at, but let's get it working first.
>
Not for performance reasons. I meant to say that this issue can be fixed
if we stop the sd devices from suspending until the sd_probe() is completed.
>>
>>>> In that case, the usage_count of supplier would be decremented until rpm_active of this link becomes 1.
>>>
>>> Right, because the sd device suspended.
>>>
>>>> Now the pm_runtime_get_suppliers() expects the link_active to be more than 1.
>>>
>>> Not sure what you mean here. pm_runtime_*put*_suppliers() won't do anything if the link count is 1.
>> I'm referring to the logs that I pasted before:
>> [ 6.941267][ T7] scsi 0:0:0:4: rpm_put_suppliers: [BEF] Supp (0:0:0:49488) usage_count: 4 rpm_active: 3
>>
>> ------ T196 Context comes in while T7 is running ----------
>> [ 6.941466][ T196] scsi 0:0:0:4: pm_runtime_get_suppliers: (0:0:0:49488): supp: usage_count: 5 rpm_active: 4
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> [ 7.788397][ T7] scsi 0:0:0:4: rpm_put_suppliers: [AFT] Supp (0:0:0:49488) usage_count: 2 rpm_active: 1
>>
>> I meant to say that, if the rpm_put_suppliers() is invoked after the pm_runtime_get_suppliers() as is seen above then the link_active may become 1 even *after* pm_runtime_get_suppliers() is invoked.
>>
>> I'm referring to the pm_runtime_get_suppliers() invoked from:
>> driver_probe_device() - say for, sd 0:0:0:x
>> |- pm_runtime_get_suppliers() - for sd 0:0:0:49488
>
> I am hoping that was the problem that Rafael's revert dealt with.
>
I think the issue is in the sequence of events.
If rpm_put_suppliers() runs after pm_runtime_get_suppliers() this issue
can occur.
>>>
>>>> Now then, there comes a time, that when sd_probe() schedules a suspend, the supplier usage_count becomes 0 and the link_active becomes 1.
>>>> And the supplier suspends before the consumer.
>>>
>>> sd probe first resumes the sd device which will resume the supplier.
>>>
>> Correct, but it'd again schedule a suspend (since autosuspend is enabled now) at the end of the sd_probe().
>> Thereafter, pm_runtime_put_suppliers()(sd 0:0:0:49488) is invoked from driver_probe_device() which had actually invoked sd_probe().
>> That'd make the link_active to 1 even when sd 0:0:0:x is active.
>
> If sd 0:0:0:x is active then rpm_get_suppliers() still has +1 rpm_active. pm_runtime_get_suppliers() also has +1 rpm_active.
> i.e. rpm_active is 3. If rpm_put_suppliers() is called, it means sd 0:0:0:x has really runtime suspended (not just waiting for autosuspend. Otherwise when the probe ends pm_runtime_put_suppliers() will drop rpm_active from 3 to 2.
In the good case it'd drop from 3 to 2. But in the bad case, I see that
it drops to 1. That's when the supplier suspends before the consumer.
That would happen when rpm_put_suppliers() runs after the
pm_runtime_get_suppliers() is completed and decrements the usage_count
of supplier until link_active is 1. At that point yes, sd 0:0:0:x has
really runtime-suspended. sd_probe() would resume it and schedule a
suspend at the end of probe.
IIUC, below is the sequence of events that can lead to this issue:
1. sd 0:0:0:x schedules an async probe
2. sd 0:0:0:x invokes scsi_autopm_put_device()
3. async probe completes pm_runtime_get_suppliers() increments the
rpm_active.
4. suspend of sd 0:0:0:x is invoked and rpm_put_suppliers() is invoked
which decrements the link_active (this was incremented in 3 above)
5. sd_probe() is invoked which resumes it and schedules a suspend
6. pm_runtime_put_suppliers() is invoked which decreases the link_active
to 1 and supplier suspends before the consumer.
So my solution was to stop sd 0:0:0:x from runtime suspending until the
sd_probe() is done.
>
> But it is a bit theoretical. Let's try it and see.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> So I was wondering, what'd make sure that the pm_runtime_get_suppliers() from driver_probe_device() is invoked after scsi_autopm_put_device() (1) finishes the rpm_put_suppliers().
>>>>
>>>> Am not sure if I'm missing something in this.
>>>> Do you think, the current changes alone can fix the above issue?
>>>
>>> Yes, but let's see.
>>>
>> Essentially, we should stop the sd device from runtime suspending until it's probe is done. Then allow the same. Does it make sense?
>> Please let me know what you think.
>
> I really think it would be good to try the changes that have been identified and see how it behaves.
>
> Then go from there.
>
Sure, I've pushed the changes v13 today.
I will test it after the changes are finalized.
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
More information about the Linux-mediatek
mailing list