Re: [PATCH] Re: mmotm 2010-07-19 - e1000e vs. pm_qos_update_request issues

[mark gross <markgross@thegnar.org>]

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 09:12:00AM +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:07:51 -0700
> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:35:25 -0400
> > Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:38:09 PDT, akpm@linux-foundation.org said:
> > > > The mm-of-the-moment snapshot 2010-07-19-16-37 has been uploaded to
> > > > 
> > > >    http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/
> > > 
> > > Throws a warning at boot:
> > > 
> > > [    1.786060] WARNING: at kernel/pm_qos_params.c:264 pm_qos_update_request+0x28/0x54()
> > > [    1.786088] Hardware name: Latitude E6500
> > > [    1.787045] pm_qos_update_request() called for unknown object
> > > [    1.787966] Modules linked in:
> > > [    1.788940] Pid: 1, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.35-rc5-mmotm0719 #1
> > > [    1.790035] Call Trace:
> > > [    1.791121]  [<ffffffff81037335>] warn_slowpath_common+0x80/0x98
> > > [    1.792205]  [<ffffffff810373e1>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x41/0x43
> > > [    1.793279]  [<ffffffff81057c14>] pm_qos_update_request+0x28/0x54
> > > [    1.794347]  [<ffffffff8134889e>] e1000_configure+0x421/0x459
> > > [    1.795393]  [<ffffffff8134afbd>] e1000_open+0xbd/0x37c
> > > [    1.796436]  [<ffffffff8105743a>] ? raw_notifier_call_chain+0xf/0x11
> > > [    1.797491]  [<ffffffff8145f948>] __dev_open+0xae/0xe2
> > > [    1.798547]  [<ffffffff8145f997>] dev_open+0x1b/0x49
> > > [    1.799612]  [<ffffffff8146e36e>] netpoll_setup+0x84/0x259
> > > [    1.800685]  [<ffffffff81b5037c>] init_netconsole+0xbc/0x21f
> > > [    1.801744]  [<ffffffff81b5026c>] ? sir_wq_init+0x0/0x35
> > > [    1.802793]  [<ffffffff81b502c0>] ? init_netconsole+0x0/0x21f
> > > [    1.803845]  [<ffffffff810002ff>] do_one_initcall+0x7a/0x12f
> > > [    1.804885]  [<ffffffff81b2ccae>] kernel_init+0x138/0x1c2
> > > [    1.805915]  [<ffffffff81003554>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
> > > [    1.806937]  [<ffffffff81590e00>] ? restore_args+0x0/0x30
> > > [    1.807955]  [<ffffffff81b2cb76>] ? kernel_init+0x0/0x1c2
> > > [    1.808958]  [<ffffffff81003550>] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x0/0x10
> > > [    1.809958] ---[ end trace 84b562a00a60539e ]---
> > > 
> > > Looks like a repeat of something I reported against -mmotm 2010-05-11, though a
> > > WARNING rather than an outright crash - the traceback is pretty much identical.
> > >  I have *no* idea why -rc3-mmotm0701 doesn't whinge similarly.
> > > 
> > 
> > I don't recall you reporting that, sorry.
> > 
> > The warning was added by
> > 
> > : commit 82f682514a5df89ffb3890627eebf0897b7a84ec
> > : Author:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@suse.de>
> > : AuthorDate: Mon Jul 5 22:53:06 2010 +0200
> > : Commit:     Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> > : CommitDate: Mon Jul 19 02:00:34 2010 +0200
> > : 
> > :     pm_qos: Get rid of the allocation in pm_qos_add_request()
> > 
> > 
> > It's a pretty crappy warning too.  Neither the warning nor the code
> > comments provide developers with any hint as to what they have done
> > wrong, nor what they must do to fix things.  And the patch changelog
> > doesn't mention the new warnings *at all*.
> > 
> > So one must assume that the people who stuck this thing in the tree
> > have volunteered to fix e1000e.  Let's cc 'em.
> > 
> 
> e1000 calls update_request before registering said request with pm_qos.
> This was silently ignored before but now emits a warning. The warning
> is sound, because it means, that the constraint-request didn't take
> effect.
> 
> The right thing is probably to register the request before
> calling update_request. 
> 
> Attached patch moves the registering from e1000_up to e1000_open and
> the unregistering from e1000_down to e1000_close. 
> It is only compile-tested as I don't have the hardware.
> 
> Cheers,
> Flo
> 
> p.s.: sorry if this get's mangled or is wrongly formatted, i'm just using
>  the "insert file" option of my mailclient and crossing my fingers...
> 
> 
> From 693c71b911ff0845c872261d5704a1d40960722d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Florian Mickler <florian@mickler.org>
> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:44:21 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] e1000e: register pm_qos request on hardware activation
> 
> The pm_qos_add_request call has to register the pm_qos request with the pm_qos
> susbsystem before first use of the pm_qos request via
> pm_qos_update_request.
> 
> As pm_qos changed to use plists there is no benefit in registering and
> unregistering the pm_qos request on ifup/ifdown and thus we move the
> registering into e1000_open and the unregistering in e1000_close.
> 
> This fixes the following warning:
> 
> [    1.786060] WARNING: at kernel/pm_qos_params.c:264
> pm_qos_update_request+0x28/0x54()
> [    1.786088] Hardware name: Latitude E6500
> [    1.787045] pm_qos_update_request() called for unknown object
> [    1.787966] Modules linked in:
> [    1.788940] Pid: 1, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.35-rc5-mmotm0719 #1
> [    1.790035] Call Trace:
> [    1.791121]  [<ffffffff81037335>] warn_slowpath_common+0x80/0x98
> [    1.792205]  [<ffffffff810373e1>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x41/0x43
> [    1.793279]  [<ffffffff81057c14>] pm_qos_update_request+0x28/0x54
> [    1.794347]  [<ffffffff8134889e>] e1000_configure+0x421/0x459
> [    1.795393]  [<ffffffff8134afbd>] e1000_open+0xbd/0x37c
> [    1.796436]  [<ffffffff8105743a>] ? raw_notifier_call_chain+0xf/0x11
> [    1.797491]  [<ffffffff8145f948>] __dev_open+0xae/0xe2
> [    1.798547]  [<ffffffff8145f997>] dev_open+0x1b/0x49
> [    1.799612]  [<ffffffff8146e36e>] netpoll_setup+0x84/0x259
> [    1.800685]  [<ffffffff81b5037c>] init_netconsole+0xbc/0x21f
> [    1.801744]  [<ffffffff81b5026c>] ? sir_wq_init+0x0/0x35
> [    1.802793]  [<ffffffff81b502c0>] ? init_netconsole+0x0/0x21f
> [    1.803845]  [<ffffffff810002ff>] do_one_initcall+0x7a/0x12f
> [    1.804885]  [<ffffffff81b2ccae>] kernel_init+0x138/0x1c2
> [    1.805915]  [<ffffffff81003554>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
> [    1.806937]  [<ffffffff81590e00>] ? restore_args+0x0/0x30
> [    1.807955]  [<ffffffff81b2cb76>] ? kernel_init+0x0/0x1c2
> [    1.808958]  [<ffffffff81003550>] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x0/0x10
> [    1.809958] ---[ end trace 84b562a00a60539e ]---
> 
> Signed-off-by: Florian Mickler <florian@mickler.org>
> ---
>  drivers/net/e1000e/netdev.c |   18 +++++++++---------
>  1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/e1000e/netdev.c b/drivers/net/e1000e/netdev.c
> index 8ba366a..1bd9054 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/e1000e/netdev.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/e1000e/netdev.c
> @@ -3218,12 +3218,6 @@ int e1000e_up(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
>  {
>  	struct e1000_hw *hw = &adapter->hw;
>  
> -	/* DMA latency requirement to workaround early-receive/jumbo issue */
> -	if (adapter->flags & FLAG_HAS_ERT)
> -		pm_qos_add_request(&adapter->netdev->pm_qos_req,
> -				   PM_QOS_CPU_DMA_LATENCY,
> -				   PM_QOS_DEFAULT_VALUE);
> -
>  	/* hardware has been reset, we need to reload some things */
>  	e1000_configure(adapter);
>  
> @@ -3287,9 +3281,6 @@ void e1000e_down(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
>  	e1000_clean_tx_ring(adapter);
>  	e1000_clean_rx_ring(adapter);
>  
> -	if (adapter->flags & FLAG_HAS_ERT)
> -		pm_qos_remove_request(&adapter->netdev->pm_qos_req);
> -
>  	/*
>  	 * TODO: for power management, we could drop the link and
>  	 * pci_disable_device here.
> @@ -3524,6 +3515,12 @@ static int e1000_open(struct net_device *netdev)
>  	     E1000_MNG_DHCP_COOKIE_STATUS_VLAN))
>  		e1000_update_mng_vlan(adapter);
>  
> +	/* DMA latency requirement to workaround early-receive/jumbo issue */
> +	if (adapter->flags & FLAG_HAS_ERT)
> +		pm_qos_add_request(&adapter->netdev->pm_qos_req,
> +				   PM_QOS_CPU_DMA_LATENCY,
> +				   PM_QOS_DEFAULT_VALUE);
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * before we allocate an interrupt, we must be ready to handle it.
>  	 * Setting DEBUG_SHIRQ in the kernel makes it fire an interrupt
> @@ -3628,6 +3625,9 @@ static int e1000_close(struct net_device *netdev)
>  	if (adapter->flags & FLAG_HAS_AMT)
>  		e1000_release_hw_control(adapter);
>  
> +	if (adapter->flags & FLAG_HAS_ERT)
> +		pm_qos_remove_request(&adapter->netdev->pm_qos_req);
> +
>  	pm_runtime_put_sync(&pdev->dev);
>  
>  	return 0;
> -- 
> 1.7.1.1
>

wow!  thanks!  I'll test this when I get back next tuesday.

--mgross