Re: PM-runtime: supplier looses track of consumer during probe

[Adrian Hunter]

On 4/11/22 11:19, Tushar Nimkar wrote:
> Hi linux-pm/linux-scsi,
> 
> Gentle reminder!
> 
> Can you please provide your suggestions on below race?
> 
> Thanks, Tushar Nimkar
> 
> On 10/14/2022 4:20 PM, Tushar Nimkar wrote:
>> Hi linux-pm/linux-scsi,
>>
>> We have included fix [1] but continuing to observe supplier loosing track of consumer.
>>
>> Below is trace snippet with additional logging added.
>> Here consumer is 0:0:0:0 and supplier is 0:0:0:49488. In Last three lines consumer resume is completed but supplier is put down.
>>
>>     kworker/u16:0-7     0.880014: rpm_idle:             0:0:0:0 flags-4 cnt-0  dep-0  auto-1 p-0 irq-0 child-0
>>     kworker/u16:0-7     0.880017: bprint: pm_runtime_mark_last_busy.46700: :#205 dev_name:0:0:0:0 ktime_get_mono_fast_ns():852365364
>>     kworker/u16:0-7     0.880019: rpm_suspend:          0:0:0:0 flags-8 cnt-0  dep-0  auto-1 p-0 irq-0 child-0
>>     kworker/u16:0-7     0.880022: bprint: pm_runtime_put_noidle.44083: pm_runtime_put_noidle: #112 dev_name:0:0:0:49488 dev usage_count:5 decremented usage count
>>     kworker/u16:0-7     0.880023: bprint: pm_runtime_put_noidle.44083: pm_runtime_put_noidle: #112 dev_name:0:0:0:49488 dev usage_count:4 decremented usage count
>>     kworker/u16:2-142   0.880024: rpm_resume:           0:0:0:0 flags-4 cnt-1  dep-0  auto-1 p-0 irq-0 child-0
>>     kworker/u16:0-7     0.880025: bprint: __rpm_put_suppliers: __rpm_put_suppliers: #348 consumer:0:0:0:0 supplier:0:0:0:49488 usage_count:4
>>     kworker/u16:0-7     0.880061: rpm_idle:             0:0:0:49488 flags-1 cnt-4  dep-0  auto-1 p-0 irq-0 child-0
>>     kworker/u16:0-7     0.880062: rpm_return_int: rpm_idle+0x16c:0:0:0:49488 ret=-11
>>     kworker/u16:2-142   0.880062: bprint: __pm_runtime_resume: __pm_runtime_resume: #1147 dev_name:0:0:0:49488 dev usage_count:5 incremented usage count
>>     kworker/u16:2-142   0.880063: rpm_resume:           0:0:0:49488 flags-4 cnt-5  dep-0  auto-1 p-0 irq-0 child-0
>>     kworker/u16:2-142   0.880063: rpm_return_int: rpm_resume+0x690:0:0:0:49488 ret=1
>>     kworker/u16:0-7     0.880063: rpm_return_int: rpm_suspend+0x68:0:0:0:0 ret=0
>>     kworker/u16:2-142   0.880063: bprint: rpm_get_suppliers: rpm_get_suppliers: #300 consumer:0:0:0:0 supplier:0:0:0:49488 usage_count:5
>>     kworker/u16:0-7     0.880065: bprint: pm_runtime_put_noidle.44083: pm_runtime_put_noidle: #112 dev_name:0:0:0:49488 dev usage_count:4 decremented usage count
>>     kworker/u16:2-142   0.880065: bprint: pm_runtime_mark_last_busy.44088: :#205 dev_name:0:0:0:0 ktime_get_mono_fast_ns():852413749
>>     kworker/u16:2-142   0.880065: rpm_idle:             0:0:0:0 flags-1 cnt-1  dep-0  auto-1 p-0 irq-0 child-0
>>     kworker/u16:2-142   0.880065: rpm_return_int: rpm_idle+0x16c:0:0:0:0 ret=-11
>>     kworker/u16:0-7     0.880066: bprint: __rpm_put_suppliers: __rpm_put_suppliers: #348 consumer:0:0:0:0 supplier:0:0:0:49488 usage_count:4
>>     kworker/u16:0-7     0.880067: rpm_return_int: rpm_idle+0x16c:0:0:0:0 ret=-16
>>     kworker/u16:2-142   0.880067: rpm_return_int: rpm_resume+0x690:0:0:0:0 ret=0
>>
>> Upon looking into this further the race looks to be in below two processes running in parallel and process-1 is putting down supplier at [C] because process-2 is setting runtime_status as resuming at [D].
>>
>> Also as per runtime PM documentation
>> In order to use autosuspend, subsystems or drivers must call
>> pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(), and thereafter they should use the various `*_autosuspend()` helper functions...
>>
>> It was also observed that *_autosuspend() API at point [A] was invoked without first invoking pm_runtime_use_autosuspend() which return expiration as zero at point [B] and proceeds ahead for immediate runtime suspend of device which seems lead to this race condition.
>>
>> Process -1
>> ufshcd_async_scan context (process 1)
>> scsi_autopm_put_device() //0:0:0:0

I am having trouble following your description.  What function is calling
scsi_autopm_put_device() here?

>> pm_runtime_put_sync()
>> __pm_runtime_idle()
>> rpm_idle() -- RPM_GET_PUT(4)
>>      __rpm_callback
>>          scsi_runtime_idle()
>>              pm_runtime_mark_last_busy()
>>              pm_runtime_autosuspend()  --[A]
>>                  rpm_suspend() -- RPM_AUTO(8)
>>                      pm_runtime_autosuspend_expiration() use_autosuspend    is false return 0   --- [B]
>>                          __update_runtime_status to RPM_SUSPENDING
>>                      __rpm_callback()
>>                          __rpm_put_suppliers(dev, false)
>>                      __update_runtime_status to RPM_SUSPENDED
>>                  rpm_suspend_suppliers()
>>                      rpm_idle() for supplier -- RPM_ASYNC(1) return (-EAGAIN) [ Other consumer active for supplier]
>>                  rpm_suspend() – END with return=0
>>          scsi_runtime_idle() END return (-EBUSY) always.

Not following here either.  Which device is EBUSY and why?

>>       /* Do that if resume fails too.*/
>>      (dev->power.runtime_status == RPM_RESUMING && retval)))  return -EBUSY
>>          __rpm_put_suppliers(dev, false)  -- [C]
>> rpm_idle() END return -EBUSY
>>
>> Process -2
>> sd_probe context (Process 2)
>> scsi_autopm_get_device() //0:0:0:0
>> __pm_runtime_resume(RPM_GET_PUT)
>> rpm_resume() -- RPM_GET_PUT(4)
>>      __update_runtime_status to RPM_RESUMING --[D]
>>      __rpm_callback()
>>          rpm_get_suppliers()
>>              __pm_runtime_resume() - RPM_GET_PUT(4) – supplier
>>                  rpm_resume() for supplier.
>>      __update_runtime_status to RPM_ACTIVE
>>      pm_runtime_mark_last_busy ()
>> rpm_resume() END return 0
>>
>> Can you please provide your suggestions on addressing above race condition?
>>
>> This is also reported at [2].
>>
>> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/4748074.GXAFRqVoOG@kreacher/T/
>> [2]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/10/12/259
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tushar Nimkar