From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 004.mia.mailroute.net (004.mia.mailroute.net [199.89.3.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3335E331A55; Wed, 26 Nov 2025 15:48:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.3.7 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764172136; cv=none; b=QjowCDEw4dA9679GwNyVj2yhUUo/3oxrdNPqXqUdfTucTdNi7Mi6qcgZ9nQ5R6/8nZPKiZnXMjCCw6eYIqER2pUSAlWsJtoLsxwarFOQHQ5qm1yTLgcOT7q8C4Jq3g5lH+MvFq9PRrIP9oiC1VbZQb3qHs8rthUGDcJLST7xfwg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764172136; c=relaxed/simple; bh=XKCHOrUC7lUwfA2lyRiev1RPUU8XOHcokBwQZZTfIMU=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=St5NuQFjDopZ6SmbRWvUyzFRECb2C5k5Lre1Rb/gVlsueE4VWek2/ZTePfNxOnhVGnCkSRSX2pb2fkOJ28X33NeHGrhhnt+blULucTtylq74jjrTOrokxFaxtvLNZlv1aL56QJz/70N6AcenctxAVqsh+dyWRK+8BWARR8F19aE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b=JXxvVnaj; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.3.7 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b="JXxvVnaj" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by 004.mia.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4dGkWB2PCNzm1Hcj; Wed, 26 Nov 2025 15:48:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=acm.org; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:in-reply-to :from:from:content-language:references:subject:subject :user-agent:mime-version:date:date:message-id:received:received; s=mr01; t=1764172132; x=1766764133; bh=nidLKHZbzxxAle9niWpnvANE hDq+v54g9Sj+5WdX6oY=; b=JXxvVnajL6QHirCbDZ4oF0Gy3Ot9s7JkwmJs4eNv bt2QKbCgx/YyE4HvqTvfZlPR/RqaJ/0cXXEma5cHEJnoglywNfl1yTzOeFC2s6cf Uma281zxvE7Ar5xHmXjek4OIlZUECxTQQ3szKQ5fwWzrOV5xL1XYEbQ88dryOlkA Ry3Hey3zB6Blswf6A9HXfqIGV6Hwy8hMH5L5C600qdzCE3c/hL4R19tlegKRWKAK KLR04bFxXe3OV2i4m7WDFT2dBfMp4xFXYX6kH2KmieMBUObwhhmOdWVAUxn1rP98 ys9lWnFGE1UgT2HYRoDurGdY3izM8d/ytx2Z5fAdFeEAWQ== X-Virus-Scanned: by MailRoute Received: from 004.mia.mailroute.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (004.mia [127.0.0.1]) (mroute_mailscanner, port 10029) with LMTP id 2ApCToxj5203; Wed, 26 Nov 2025 15:48:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.51.14] (c-73-231-117-72.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.231.117.72]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bvanassche@acm.org) by 004.mia.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4dGkVy5RLVzm0c5R; Wed, 26 Nov 2025 15:48:41 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <94c6680c-1b86-4cee-8e9c-860daf629b59@acm.org> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2025 07:48:40 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] PM: runtime: Fix potential I/O hang To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Yang Yang Cc: Jens Axboe , Pavel Machek , Len Brown , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Danilo Krummrich , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org References: <20251126101636.205505-1-yang.yang@vivo.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 11/26/25 3:31 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Please address the issue differently. It seems unfortunate to me that __pm_runtime_barrier() can cause pm_request_resume() to hang. Would it be safe to remove the cancel_work_sync() call from __pm_runtime_barrier() since pm_runtime_work() calls functions that check disable_depth when processing RPM_REQ_SUSPEND and RPM_REQ_AUTOSUSPEND? Would this be sufficient to fix the reported deadlock? Thanks, Bart.