On Sat, Jun 06, 2020 at 03:14:59PM +0800, Chen Yu wrote:
> Hi,
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 09:33:11PM +0200, Michal Miroslaw wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 06, 2020 at 03:05:52AM +0800, Chen Yu wrote:
> > > Commit d229290689ae ("PM-runtime: add tracepoints for usage_count
> > > changes")
> > > has added some tracepoints to monitor the change of runtime usage, and
> > > there is something to improve:
> > > 1. There are some places that adjust the usage count have not
> > > been traced yet. For example, pm_runtime_get_noresume() and
> > > pm_runtime_put_noidle()
> > > 2. The change of the usage count will not be tracked if decreased
> > > from 1 to 0.
> > [...]
> > > @@ -1448,16 +1453,17 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pm_runtime_forbid);
> > > */
> > > void pm_runtime_allow(struct device *dev)
> > > {
> > > + bool is_zero;
> > > +
> > > spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
> > > if (dev->power.runtime_auto)
> > > goto out;
> > >
> > > dev->power.runtime_auto = true;
> > > - if (atomic_dec_and_test(&dev->power.usage_count))
> > > + is_zero = atomic_dec_and_test(&dev->power.usage_count);
> > > + trace_rpm_usage_rcuidle(dev, RPM_AUTO | RPM_ASYNC);
> > > + if (is_zero)
> > > rpm_idle(dev, RPM_AUTO | RPM_ASYNC);
> > > - else
> > > - trace_rpm_usage_rcuidle(dev, RPM_AUTO | RPM_ASYNC);
> > > -
> > [...]
> >
> > IIRC, rpm_idle() has a tracepoint already.
> >
> Yes, this is what I concerned previously. If someone
> want to track the change of usage_count, then he might
> have to enable both trace rpm_usage and rpm_idle so
> as to track the moment when the counter drops from 1 to
> 0. It might be more consistent if we only enable
> trace rpm_usage to track the whole process.
> > > @@ -1523,9 +1529,8 @@ static void update_autosuspend(struct device *dev,
> > > int old_delay, int old_use)
> > > /* If it used to be allowed then prevent it. */
> > > if (!old_use || old_delay >= 0) {
> > > atomic_inc(&dev->power.usage_count);
> > > - rpm_resume(dev, 0);
> > > - } else {
> > > trace_rpm_usage_rcuidle(dev, 0);
> > > + rpm_resume(dev, 0);
> > > }
> > > }
> > [...]
> >
> > This actually changes logic, so it doesn't match the patch description.
> >
> This patch intends to adjust the logic to be consistent with
> the change of usage_counter, that is to say, only after the
> counter has been possibly modified, we record it. In current
> logic above, it tracks the usage count where the latter does
> not change.
I see now what you intended. I think it would be nice to put the idea
(that all usage changes be shown using rpm_usage even if included in
other trace points) into the commit message. Otherwise, looks ok.
Best Regards
Michał Mirosław
