From: Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc: asutoshd@codeaurora.org, nguyenb@codeaurora.org,
hongwus@codeaurora.org, rnayak@codeaurora.org,
stanley.chu@mediatek.com, alim.akhtar@samsung.com,
beanhuo@micron.com, Avri.Altman@wdc.com,
bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-team@android.com, saravanak@google.com,
salyzyn@google.com, "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] scsi: pm: Balance pm_only counter of request queue during system resume
Date: Fri, 01 May 2020 13:12:17 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3bfa692ce706c5c198f565e674afb56f@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <226048f7-6ad3-a625-c2ed-d9d13e096803@acm.org>
On 2020-05-01 09:50, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 2020-04-30 18:42, Can Guo wrote:
>> On 2020-05-01 04:32, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> > Has it been considered to test directly whether a SCSI device has been
>> > runtime suspended instead of relying on blk_queue_pm_only()? How about
>> > using pm_runtime_status_suspended() or adding a function in
>> > block/blk-pm.h that checks whether q->rpm_status == RPM_SUSPENDED?
>>
>> Yes, I used to make the patch like that way, and it also worked well,
>> as
>> both ways are equal actually. I kinda like the current code because we
>> should be confident that after scsi_dev_type_resume() returns, pm_only
>> must be 0. Different reviewers may have different opinions, either way
>> works well anyways.
>
> Hi Can,
>
> Please note that this is not a matter of personal preferences of a
> reviewer but a matter of correctness. blk_queue_pm_only() does not only
> return a value > 0 if a SCSI device has been runtime suspended but also
> returns true if scsi_device_quiesce() was called for another reason.
> Hence my request to test the "runtime suspended" status directly and
> not
> to rely on blk_queue_pm_only().
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
Hi Bart,
I agree we are pursuing correctness here, but as I said, I think both
way are equally correct. I also agree with you that the alternative way,
see [2], is much easier to be understood, we can take the alternative
way
if you are OK with it.
[1] Currently, scsi_dev_type_resume() is the hooker for resume, thaw and
restore. Per my understanding, when scsi_dev_type_resume() is running,
it is not possible that scsi_device_quiesce() can be called to this
sdev,
at least not possible in current code base. So it is OK to rely on
blk_queue_pm_only() in scsi_dev_type_resume().
[2] The alternative way which I have tested with is like below. I think
it is what you requested for if my understanding is right, please
correct
me if I am wrong.
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_pm.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_pm.c
index 3717eea..d18271d 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_pm.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_pm.c
@@ -74,12 +74,15 @@ static int scsi_dev_type_resume(struct device *dev,
{
const struct dev_pm_ops *pm = dev->driver ? dev->driver->pm :
NULL;
int err = 0;
+ bool was_rpm_suspended = false;
err = cb(dev, pm);
scsi_device_resume(to_scsi_device(dev));
dev_dbg(dev, "scsi resume: %d\n", err);
if (err == 0) {
+ was_rpm_suspended = pm_runtime_suspended(dev);
+
pm_runtime_disable(dev);
err = pm_runtime_set_active(dev);
pm_runtime_enable(dev);
@@ -93,8 +96,10 @@ static int scsi_dev_type_resume(struct device *dev,
*/
if (!err && scsi_is_sdev_device(dev)) {
struct scsi_device *sdev = to_scsi_device(dev);
-
- blk_set_runtime_active(sdev->request_queue);
+ if (was_rpm_suspended)
+
blk_post_runtime_resume(sdev->request_queue, 0);
+ else
+
blk_set_runtime_active(sdev->request_queue);
}
}
Thanks,
Can Guo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-01 5:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-30 4:10 [PATCH v3 1/1] scsi: pm: Balance pm_only counter of request queue during system resume Can Guo
2020-04-30 5:08 ` Bart Van Assche
2020-04-30 5:40 ` Can Guo
2020-04-30 20:32 ` Bart Van Assche
2020-05-01 1:19 ` Can Guo
2020-05-01 1:42 ` Can Guo
2020-05-01 1:50 ` Bart Van Assche
2020-05-01 5:12 ` Can Guo [this message]
2020-05-01 17:56 ` Bart Van Assche
2020-05-02 1:59 ` Can Guo
2020-04-30 9:11 ` Avri Altman
2020-04-30 12:38 ` Can Guo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3bfa692ce706c5c198f565e674afb56f@codeaurora.org \
--to=cang@codeaurora.org \
--cc=Avri.Altman@wdc.com \
--cc=alim.akhtar@samsung.com \
--cc=asutoshd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=beanhuo@micron.com \
--cc=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=hongwus@codeaurora.org \
--cc=jejb@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=nguyenb@codeaurora.org \
--cc=rnayak@codeaurora.org \
--cc=salyzyn@google.com \
--cc=saravanak@google.com \
--cc=stanley.chu@mediatek.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox