lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Apr]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1] PM: runtime: Avoid device usage count underflows
On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 at 21:03, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
>
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>
> A PM-runtime device usage count underflow is potentially critical,
> because it may cause a device to be suspended when it is expected to
> be operational.

I get the point. Although, perhaps we should also state that it's a
programming problem that we would like to catch and warn about?

>
> For this reason, (1) make rpm_check_suspend_allowed() return an error
> when the device usage count is negative to prevent devices from being
> suspended in that case, (2) introduce rpm_drop_usage_count() that will
> detect device usage count underflows, warn about them and fix them up,
> and (3) use it to drop the usage count in a few places instead of
> atomic_dec_and_test().
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/base/power/runtime.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> @@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ static int rpm_check_suspend_allowed(str
> retval = -EINVAL;
> else if (dev->power.disable_depth > 0)
> retval = -EACCES;
> - else if (atomic_read(&dev->power.usage_count) > 0)
> + else if (atomic_read(&dev->power.usage_count))
> retval = -EAGAIN;
> else if (!dev->power.ignore_children &&
> atomic_read(&dev->power.child_count))
> @@ -1039,13 +1039,33 @@ int pm_schedule_suspend(struct device *d
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pm_schedule_suspend);
>
> +static int rpm_drop_usage_count(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = atomic_sub_return(1, &dev->power.usage_count);
> + if (ret >= 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> + /*
> + * Because rpm_resume() does not check the usage counter, it will resume
> + * the device even if the usage counter is 0 or negative, so it is
> + * sufficient to increment the usage counter here to reverse the change
> + * made above.
> + */
> + atomic_inc(&dev->power.usage_count);

Rather than this two-step process, couldn't we just do an
"atomic_add_unless(&dev->power.usage_count, -1, 0)" - and check the
return value?

> + dev_warn(dev, "Runtime PM usage count underflow!\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> +}
> +

[...]

Kind regards
Uffe

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-04-08 16:05    [W:0.132 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site