Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v10 1/2] scsi: ufs: Enable power management for wlun | From | "Asutosh Das (asd)" <> | Date | Tue, 9 Mar 2021 07:56:30 -0800 |
| |
On 3/8/2021 9:17 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 5:21 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 5:17 PM Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 06:54:24PM -0800, Asutosh Das (asd) wrote: >>> >>>> Now during my testing I see a weird issue sometimes (1 in 7). >>>> Scenario - bootups >>>> >>>> Issue: >>>> The supplier 'ufs_device_wlun 0:0:0:49488' goes into runtime suspend even >>>> when one/more of its consumers are in RPM_ACTIVE state. >>>> >>>> *Log: >>>> [ 10.056379][ T206] sd 0:0:0:1: [sdb] Synchronizing SCSI cache >>>> [ 10.062497][ T113] sd 0:0:0:5: [sdf] Synchronizing SCSI cache >>>> [ 10.356600][ T32] sd 0:0:0:7: [sdh] Synchronizing SCSI cache >>>> [ 10.362944][ T174] sd 0:0:0:3: [sdd] Synchronizing SCSI cache >>>> [ 10.696627][ T83] sd 0:0:0:2: [sdc] Synchronizing SCSI cache >>>> [ 10.704562][ T170] sd 0:0:0:6: [sdg] Synchronizing SCSI cache >>>> [ 10.980602][ T5] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Synchronizing SCSI cache >>>> >>>> /** Printing all the consumer nodes of supplier **/ >>>> [ 10.987327][ T5] ufs_device_wlun 0:0:0:49488: usage-count @ suspend: 0 >>>> <-- this is the usage_count >>>> [ 10.994440][ T5] ufs_rpmb_wlun 0:0:0:49476: PM state - 2 >>>> [ 11.000402][ T5] scsi 0:0:0:49456: PM state - 2 >>>> [ 11.005453][ T5] sd 0:0:0:0: PM state - 2 >>>> [ 11.009958][ T5] sd 0:0:0:1: PM state - 2 >>>> [ 11.014469][ T5] sd 0:0:0:2: PM state - 2 >>>> [ 11.019072][ T5] sd 0:0:0:3: PM state - 2 >>>> [ 11.023595][ T5] sd 0:0:0:4: PM state - 0 << RPM_ACTIVE >>>> [ 11.353298][ T5] sd 0:0:0:5: PM state - 2 >>>> [ 11.357726][ T5] sd 0:0:0:6: PM state - 2 >>>> [ 11.362155][ T5] sd 0:0:0:7: PM state - 2 >>>> [ 11.366584][ T5] ufshcd-qcom 1d84000.ufshc: __ufshcd_wl_suspend - 8709 >>>> [ 11.374366][ T5] ufs_device_wlun 0:0:0:49488: __ufshcd_wl_suspend - >>>> (0) has rpm_active flags >> >> Do you mean that rpm_active of the link between the consumer and the >> supplier is greater than 0 at this point and the consumer is > > I mean is rpm_active of the link greater than 1 (because 1 means "no > active references to the supplier")? Hi Rafael: No - it is not greater than 1.
I'm trying to understand what's going on in it; will update when I've something.
> >> RPM_ACTIVE, but the supplier suspends successfully nevertheless? >> >>>> [ 11.383376][ T5] ufs_device_wlun 0:0:0:49488: >>>> ufshcd_wl_runtime_suspend <-- Supplier suspends fine. >>>> [ 12.977318][ T174] sd 0:0:0:4: [sde] Synchronizing SCSI cache >>>> >>>> And the the suspend of sde is stuck now: >>>> schedule+0x9c/0xe0 >>>> schedule_timeout+0x40/0x128 >>>> io_schedule_timeout+0x44/0x68 >>>> wait_for_common_io+0x7c/0x100 >>>> wait_for_completion_io+0x14/0x20 >>>> blk_execute_rq+0x90/0xcc >>>> __scsi_execute+0x104/0x1c4 >>>> sd_sync_cache+0xf8/0x2a0 >>>> sd_suspend_common+0x74/0x11c >>>> sd_suspend_runtime+0x14/0x20 >>>> scsi_runtime_suspend+0x64/0x94 >>>> __rpm_callback+0x80/0x2a4 >>>> rpm_suspend+0x308/0x614 >>>> pm_runtime_work+0x98/0xa8 >>>> >>>> I added 'DL_FLAG_RPM_ACTIVE' while creating links. >>>> if (hba->sdev_ufs_device) { >>>> link = device_link_add(&sdev->sdev_gendev, >>>> &hba->sdev_ufs_device->sdev_gendev, >>>> DL_FLAG_PM_RUNTIME|DL_FLAG_RPM_ACTIVE); >>>> I didn't expect this to resolve the issue anyway and it didn't. >>>> >>>> Another interesting point here is when I resume any of the above suspended >>>> consumers, it all goes back to normal, which is kind of expected. I tried >>>> resuming the consumer and the supplier is resumed and the supplier is >>>> suspended when all the consumers are suspended. >>>> >>>> Any pointers on this issue please? >>>> >>>> @Bart/@Alan - Do you've any pointers please? >>> >>> It's very noticeable that although you seem to have isolated a bug in >>> the power management subsystem (supplier goes into runtime suspend >>> even when one of its consumers is still active), you did not CC the >>> power management maintainer or mailing list. >>> >>> I have added the appropriate CC's. >> >> Thanks Alan!
-- The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
| |