On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:00 PM Jon Hunter <jonath...@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rafael,
>
> On 12/02/2019 12:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com>
> >
> > If a stateless device link to a certain supplier with
> > DL_FLAG_PM_RUNTIME set in the flags is added and then removed by the
> > consumer driver's probe callback, the supplier's PM-runtime usage
> > counter will be nonzero after that which effectively causes the
> > supplier to remain "always on" going forward.
> >
> > Namely, device_link_add() called to add the link invokes
> > device_link_rpm_prepare() which notices that the consumer driver is
> > probing, so it increments the supplier's PM-runtime usage counter
> > with the assumption that the link will stay around until
> > pm_runtime_put_suppliers() is called by driver_probe_device(),
> > but if the link goes away before that point, the supplier's
> > PM-runtime usage counter will remain nonzero.
> >
> > To prevent that from happening, first rework pm_runtime_get_suppliers()
> > and pm_runtime_put_suppliers() to use the rpm_active refounts of device
> > links and make the latter only drop rpm_active and the supplier's
> > PM-runtime usage counter for each link by one, unless rpm_active is
> > one already for it.  Next, modify device_link_add() to bump up the
> > new link's rpm_active refcount and the suppliers PM-runtime usage
> > counter by two, to prevent pm_runtime_put_suppliers(), if it is
> > called subsequently, from suspending the supplier prematurely (in
> > case its PM-runtime usage counter goes down to 0 in there).
> >
> > Due to the way rpm_put_suppliers() works, this change does not
> > affect runtime suspend of the consumer ends of new device links (or,
> > generally, device links for which DL_FLAG_PM_RUNTIME has just been
> > set).
> >
> > Fixes: e2f3cd831a28 ("driver core: Fix handling of runtime PM flags in 
> > device_link_add()")
> > Reported-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hans...@linaro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com>
> > ---
> >
> > Note that the issue had been there before commit e2f3cd831a28, but it was
> > overlooked by that commit and this change is a fix on top of it, so make
> > the Fixes: tag point to commit e2f3cd831a28 (instead of an earlier one
> > that the patch will not be applicable to).
>
> I noticed that yesterday's and today's -next were no longer booting on
> one of our Tegra boards (Tegra210 Jetson TX2) because networking is
> failing. The ethernet chip is a USB device and looking at the bootlogs I
> can see that the Tegra XHCI driver is failing ...

Is it failing because of this particular commit?  That is, does
reverting the entire commit help?

>  tegra-xusb 70090000.usb: xHCI host controller not responding, assume dead
>  tegra-xusb 70090000.usb: HC died; cleaning up
>
> The Tegra XHCI driver uses multiple power-domains and uses
> device_link_add() to attach them. So now I am wondering if there is
> something that we have got wrong in our implementation. However, I don't
> see the device being probed deferred on boot or anything like that.

It won't be, because you use stateless links.

> The driver in question is drivers/usb/host/xhci-tegra.c and we add the
> links in the function tegra_xusb_powerdomain_init() which is before RPM
> is enabled. Let me know if you have any thoughts.

Well, if it breaks, then there is a bug somewhere.  I'm not seeing it
now, but let's dig into this.

Since you don't pass DL_FLAG_RPM_ACTIVE to device_link_add(), the
changes related to that don't matter.

The links are not there before your probe function runs.  It adds the
links and then pm_runtime_put_suppliers() sees them, but since
link->rpm_active is one for the new links, it won't do anything with
them.

Well, there is a difference, but if it matters, then something fishy
is going on IMO.  Before this change pm_runtime_put_suppliers() would
do pm_runtime_put() on the new links' suppliers and (because their
PM-runtime usage counters are both one at that point) it will actually
try to suspend the suppliers.  It should be easy enough to verify if
this really matters, stay tuned.

Reply via email to