Do we need asynchronous pm_runtime_get()? (was: Re: bisected regression ...)

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Sunday, July 29, 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, July 29, 2012, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Jul 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > 
> > > The difference is, if you use _put_sync(), you need to wait the extra 10 ms
> > > for local_pci_probe() to return (if the parent is actually suspended),
> > > although you might not need to wait for it if you used _put(), right?
> > 
> > Yes, that's the difference.  But who waits for local_pci_probe() to 
> > return?  :-)
> 
> pci_register_driver() might, but that's not a big deal.  Hot-plug might
> as well, though.
> 
> > > Which, to me, means that using _put_sync() may not be always better.
> > > It probably doesn't matter a lot, but then the workqueue overhead shouldn't
> > > matter a lot either.
> > 
> > It's that in the end, the extra overhead is pretty small.  For me
> > there's also an issue of style: If you do a synchronous get then it
> > looks odd not to do a synchronous put.  My feeling has always been that
> > the async routines are for use in non-process contexts, where the sync
> > routines can't be used.  Using them just to return a little more
> > quickly is a foreign idea.
> 
> I see. :-)
> 
> The reason for using sync get is quite obvious: we want to be able to access
> the device later on.  For sync put that's not so clear, though. There are cases
> when we definitely want to do it, like the failing .probe() in which we want to
> disable runtime PM next to the put, but usually it doesn't hurt (too much) to
> defer it IMO.

Now it occured to me that perhaps we don't need the current asynchronous
pm_runtime_get() at all.  The usefulness of it is quite questionable, because
either we want to resume the device immediately, for which pm_runtime_get_sync()
should be used, or we just want to bump up the usage counter, in which cases
pm_runtime_get_noresume() should always be sufficient.  I fail to see any
particularly compelling use case for pm_runtime_get() doing an asynchronous
resume at the moment, but perhaps that's just me.

However, I receive reports of people using pm_runtime_get() where they really
should use pm_runtime_get_sync(), so I wonder if we can simply rename
pm_runtime_get_sync() as pm_runtime_get() and drop the asynchronous version
altogether?

Rafael