Hi, On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 06:28:32PM +0530, Govindraj wrote: > On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Felipe Balbi <ba...@ti.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 05:29:12PM +0530, Govindraj wrote: > >> Yes fine, But there are scenarios even before first runtime_suspend > >> happens, > >> > >> ex: uart_port_configure -> get_sync -> pm_generic_runtime_resume > >> (omap_device_enable in this case) debug printk -> console_write -> > >> get_sync. > >> > >> there are numerous such scenarios where we end from runtime context > >> to runtime api context again, or jumping from one uart port operation > >> to uart print operation. > > > > calling pm_runtime_get_sync() should not be a problem. It should only > > increase the usage counters... This sounds like a race condition on the > > driver, no ? > > Actually when we call a API to enable clocks we except the internals of API > to just enable clocks and return. > > *Clock enable API should not cause or trigger to do a > _device_driver_operation_ > even before enabling clocks of the device-driver which called it* > > for uart context get_sync can land me to uart driver back > even before enabling the uart clocks due to printks.
only if _you_ have prints or _your_ runtime_*() calls, no ? Let's say omap_hwmod.c wants to do a print: -> printk() -> pm_runtime_get_sync -> console_write -> pm_runtim_put now, if you have a printk() on your runtime_resume() before you enable the clocks, then I can see why you would deadlock: -> pm_runtime_get_sync -> omap_serial_runtime_resume -> printk -> pm_runtime_get_sync -> omap_serial_runtime_resume -> printk -> pm_runtime_get_sync ..... maybe I'm missing something, but can you add a stack dump on your ->runtime_resume and ->runtime_suspend methods, just so we try to figure out who's to blame here ? > > What you're experiencing, if I understood correctly, is a deadlock ? In > > that case, can you try to track the locking mechanism on the omap-serial > > driver to try to find if there isn't anything obviously wrong ? > > > > Yes deadlocks. due to entering from runtime context to runtime context > or entering from uart_port_operation to uart_console_write ops. > > There are already port locks used extensively within the uart driver > to secure a port operation. > > But cannot secure a port operation while using clock_enable API. > since clock enable API can land the control back to uart_console_write > operation.. but in that case, if clock isn't enabled, why don't you just ignore the print and enable the clock ?? Just return 0 and continue with clk_enable() ?? > >> So either we should not have those prints from pm_generic layers or > >> suppress > >> them(seems pretty much a problem for a clean design within the driver > >> using console_lock/unlock for every get_sync, and for > >> runtime_put we cannot suppress the prints as it gets scheduled later) > >> > >> or if other folks who really need those prints form pm_generic* layers > >> to debug and analysis then we have no other choice rather control > >> the clk_enable/disable from outside driver code in idle path. > > > > yeah, none of these would be nice :-( > > > > I think this needs more debugging to be sure what's exactly going on. > > What's exactly causing the deadlock ? Which lock is held and never > > released ? > > > > I had done some investigations, from scenarios it simply boils down to fact > to handle clock within uart driver, uart driver expects clock enable API* used > to just enable uart clocks but rather not trigger a _uart_ops_ within which > kind of unacceptable from the uart_driver context. ok, now I see what you mean: 113 static int _omap_device_activate(struct omap_device *od, u8 ignore_lat) 114 { 115 struct timespec a, b, c; 116 117 pr_debug("omap_device: %s: activating\n", od->pdev.name); 118 119 while (od->pm_lat_level > 0) { 120 struct omap_device_pm_latency *odpl; 121 unsigned long long act_lat = 0; 122 123 od->pm_lat_level--; 124 125 odpl = od->pm_lats + od->pm_lat_level; 126 127 if (!ignore_lat && 128 (od->dev_wakeup_lat <= od->_dev_wakeup_lat_limit)) 129 break; 130 131 read_persistent_clock(&a); 132 133 /* XXX check return code */ 134 odpl->activate_func(od); 135 136 read_persistent_clock(&b); 137 138 c = timespec_sub(b, a); 139 act_lat = timespec_to_ns(&c); 140 141 pr_debug("omap_device: %s: pm_lat %d: activate: elapsed time " 142 "%llu nsec\n", od->pdev.name, od->pm_lat_level, 143 act_lat); 144 145 if (act_lat > odpl->activate_lat) { 146 odpl->activate_lat_worst = act_lat; 147 if (odpl->flags & OMAP_DEVICE_LATENCY_AUTO_ADJUST) { 148 odpl->activate_lat = act_lat; 149 pr_warning("omap_device: %s.%d: new worst case " 150 "activate latency %d: %llu\n", 151 od->pdev.name, od->pdev.id, 152 od->pm_lat_level, act_lat); 153 } else 154 pr_warning("omap_device: %s.%d: activate " 155 "latency %d higher than exptected. " 156 "(%llu > %d)\n", 157 od->pdev.name, od->pdev.id, 158 od->pm_lat_level, act_lat, 159 odpl->activate_lat); 160 } 161 162 od->dev_wakeup_lat -= odpl->activate_lat; 163 } 164 165 return 0; 166 } When that first pr_debug() triggers, UART's hwmod could be disabled, and that would trigger the state I described above where you would keep on calling pm_runtime_get_sync() forever ;-) isn't it enough to patch it like below: diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/omap_device.c b/arch/arm/plat-omap/omap_device.c index b6b4097..560f622 100644 --- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/omap_device.c +++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/omap_device.c @@ -114,8 +114,6 @@ static int _omap_device_activate(struct omap_device *od, u8 ignore_lat) { struct timespec a, b, c; - pr_debug("omap_device: %s: activating\n", od->pdev.name); - while (od->pm_lat_level > 0) { struct omap_device_pm_latency *odpl; unsigned long long act_lat = 0; @@ -162,6 +160,8 @@ static int _omap_device_activate(struct omap_device *od, u8 ignore_lat) od->dev_wakeup_lat -= odpl->activate_lat; } + pr_debug("omap_device: %s: activated\n", od->pdev.name); + return 0; } either the above or something like: if (pm_runtime_suspended(dev)) return 0; on console_write() ?? -- balbi
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature