[PATCH] PM / Runtime: Defer resuming of the device in pm_runtime_force_resume()

[Laurent Pinchart]

On Thursday 21 Apr 2016 20:31:52 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Ulf,
> 
> Thank you for the patch.
> 
> On Thursday 21 Apr 2016 12:34:02 Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > When the pm_runtime_force_suspend|resume() helpers were invented, we still
> > had CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME and CONFIG_PM_SLEEP as separate Kconfig options.
> > 
> > To make sure these helpers worked for all combinations and without
> > introducing too much of complexity, the device was always resumed in
> > pm_runtime_force_resume().
> > 
> > More precisely, when CONFIG_PM_SLEEP was set and CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME was
> > unset, we needed to resume the device as the subsystem/driver couldn't
> > rely on using runtime PM to do it.
> > 
> > As the CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME option was merged into CONFIG_PM a while ago, it
> > removed this combination, of using CONFIG_PM_SLEEP without the earlier
> > CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME.
> > 
> > For this reason we can now rely on the subsystem/driver to use runtime PM
> > to resume the device, instead of forcing that to be done in all cases. In
> > other words, let's defer this to a later point when it's actually needed.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson at linaro.org>
> > ---
> > 
> > Note, this patch is based upon another not yet queued patch [1]. The
> > reason
> > is simply because that [1] is a more important patch as it fixes a
> > problem.
> > It was posted to linux-pm April 8th and I expect it (or a new revision of
> > it) to be applied before $subject patch.
> > 
> > [1]
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8782851
> > 
> > ---
> > 
> >  drivers/base/power/runtime.c | 11 +++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> > index b746904..a190ca0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> > @@ -1506,6 +1506,17 @@ int pm_runtime_force_resume(struct device *dev)
> > 
> >  		goto out;
> >  	
> >  	}
> > 
> > +	/*
> > +	 * The PM core increases the runtime PM usage count in the system PM
> > +	 * prepare phase. If the count is greather than 1 at this point, 
someone
> > +	 * else has also increased it. In such case, let's make sure to runtime
> > +	 * resume the device as that is likely what is expected. In other case
> > +	 * we trust the subsystem/driver to runtime resume the device when it's
> > +	 * actually needed.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (atomic_read(&dev->power.usage_count) < 2)
> > +		goto out;
> > +
> > 
> >  	ret = pm_runtime_set_active(dev);
> >  	if (ret)
> >  	
> >  		goto out;
> 
> This works in the sense that it prevents devices from being PM resumed at
> system resume time if not needed. However, devices that are part of a PM
> domain and that were idle before system suspend are suspended twice (with
> their .runtime_suspend() handler called twice), which is not good at all.
> 
> The first suspend occurs at system suspend time, with
> pm_runtime_force_suspend() rightfully suspending the device as the device is
> active (due to being woken up by pm_genpd_prepare()). The second suspend
> occurs at resume time due to device_complete() calling pm_runtime_put().
> 
> I've tracked the issue to the fact that pm_genpd_complete() calls
> pm_runtime_set_active() regardless of whether the device was PM resumed or
> not. As pm_runtime_force_suspend() doesn't resume devices with this patch
> applied, the pm_runtime_put() call from device_complete() will try to
> runtime suspend the device a second time as the state is incorrectly set to
> RPM_ACTIVE.
> 
> With the current genpd implementation this patch isn't needed (and neither
> is my patch), as genpd expects the device to be always active when the
> system is resumed. However, when genpd isn't used,
> pm_runtime_force_resume() needs to skip resuming devices that were
> suspended before system suspend. This patch looks good to me to fix that
> problem.
>
> Do we need to fix genpd first ?

And for the record, while this patch would require fixing genpd first, "[PATCH 
v2] PM / Runtime: Only force-resume device if it has been force-suspended" 
doesn't (at least as far as I understand the problem).

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart