public inbox for stable@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
To: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: Daniel J Blueman <daniel@quora.org>,
	stable@vger.kernel.org, Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Allow D3 when we are not actively managing a known PCI device.
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2022 08:56:00 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2f318650-b01a-a526-8b74-bff99d5b2010@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220921173914.1606359-1-rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>


On 21/09/2022 18:39, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> The force_probe protection actively avoids the probe of i915 to
> manage a device that is currently under development. It is a nice
> protection for future users when getting a new platform but using
> some older kernel.
> 
> However, when we avoid the probe we don't take back the registration
> of the device. We cannot give up the registration anyway since we can
> have multiple devices present. For instance an integrated and a discrete
> one.
> 
> When this scenario occurs, the user will not be able to change any
> of the runtime pm configuration of the unmanaged device. So, it will
> be blocked in D0 state wasting power. This is specially bad in the
> case where we have a discrete platform attached, but the user is
> able to fully use the integrated one for everything else.
> 
> So, let's put the protected and unmanaged device in D3. So we can
> save some power.
> 
> Reported-by: Daniel J Blueman <daniel@quora.org>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Daniel J Blueman <daniel@quora.org>
> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
> Cc: Anshuman Gupta <anshuman.gupta@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> ---
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c | 8 ++++++++
>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c
> index 77e7df21f539..fc3e7c69af2a 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c
> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
>   #include <drm/drm_color_mgmt.h>
>   #include <drm/drm_drv.h>
>   #include <drm/i915_pciids.h>
> +#include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
>   
>   #include "gt/intel_gt_regs.h"
>   #include "gt/intel_sa_media.h"
> @@ -1304,6 +1305,7 @@ static int i915_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *ent)
>   {
>   	struct intel_device_info *intel_info =
>   		(struct intel_device_info *) ent->driver_data;
> +	struct device *kdev = &pdev->dev;
>   	int err;
>   
>   	if (intel_info->require_force_probe &&
> @@ -1314,6 +1316,12 @@ static int i915_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *ent)
>   			 "module parameter or CONFIG_DRM_I915_FORCE_PROBE=%04x configuration option,\n"
>   			 "or (recommended) check for kernel updates.\n",
>   			 pdev->device, pdev->device, pdev->device);
> +
> +		/* Let's not waste power if we are not managing the device */
> +		pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(kdev);
> +		pm_runtime_allow(kdev);
> +		pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(kdev);

This sequence is black magic to me so can't really comment on the specifics. But in general, what I think I've figured out is, that the PCI core calls our runtime resume callback before probe:

local_pci_probe:
...
         /*
          * Unbound PCI devices are always put in D0, regardless of
          * runtime PM status.  During probe, the device is set to
          * active and the usage count is incremented.  If the driver
          * supports runtime PM, it should call pm_runtime_put_noidle(),
          * or any other runtime PM helper function decrementing the usage
          * count, in its probe routine and pm_runtime_get_noresume() in
          * its remove routine.
          */
         pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
         pci_dev->driver = pci_drv;
         rc = pci_drv->probe(pci_dev, ddi->id);
         if (!rc)
                 return rc;
         if (rc < 0) {
                 pci_dev->driver = NULL;
                 pm_runtime_put_sync(dev);
                 return rc;
         }

And if probe fails it calls pm_runtime_put_sync which presumably does not provide the symmetry we need?

Anyway since I can't provide meaningful review I'll copy Imre since I think he worked in the area in the past. Just so more eyes is better.

Regards,

Tvrtko


> +
>   		return -ENODEV;
>   	}
>   

  reply	other threads:[~2022-09-22  7:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-09-21 17:39 [PATCH] drm/i915: Allow D3 when we are not actively managing a known PCI device Rodrigo Vivi
2022-09-22  7:56 ` Tvrtko Ursulin [this message]
2022-09-22  9:43   ` [Intel-gfx] " Rodrigo Vivi
2022-09-22 11:09     ` Gupta, Anshuman
2022-09-22 12:40       ` Gupta, Anshuman
2022-09-23 18:20         ` Vivi, Rodrigo
2022-09-24 17:52           ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2022-09-22  9:23 ` Jani Nikula

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=2f318650-b01a-a526-8b74-bff99d5b2010@linux.intel.com \
    --to=tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=daniel@quora.org \
    --cc=imre.deak@intel.com \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    /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