[Nouveau] [PATCH 1/5] drm/nouveau: Prevent RPM callback recursion in suspend/resume paths

[Lyude Paul]

On Tue, 2018-07-17 at 20:20 +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 12:53:11PM -0400, Lyude Paul wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-07-17 at 09:16 +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 07:59:25PM -0400, Lyude Paul wrote:
> > > > In order to fix all of the spots that need to have runtime PM get/puts()
> > > > added, we need to ensure that it's possible for us to call
> > > > pm_runtime_get/put() in any context, regardless of how deep, since
> > > > almost all of the spots that are currently missing refs can potentially
> > > > get called in the runtime suspend/resume path. Otherwise, we'll try to
> > > > resume the GPU as we're trying to resume the GPU (and vice-versa) and
> > > > cause the kernel to deadlock.
> > > > 
> > > > With this, it should be safe to call the pm runtime functions in any
> > > > context in nouveau with one condition: any point in the driver that
> > > > calls pm_runtime_get*() cannot hold any locks owned by nouveau that
> > > > would be acquired anywhere inside nouveau_pmops_runtime_resume().
> > > > This includes modesetting locks, i2c bus locks, etc.
> > > 
> > > [snip]
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_drm.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_drm.c
> > > > @@ -835,6 +835,8 @@ nouveau_pmops_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev)
> > > >  		return -EBUSY;
> > > >  	}
> > > >  
> > > > +	dev->power.disable_depth++;
> > > > +
> > > 
> > > Anyway, if I understand the commit message correctly, you're hitting a
> > > pm_runtime_get_sync() in a code path that itself is called during a
> > > pm_runtime_get_sync().  Could you include stack traces in the commit
> > > message?  My gut feeling is that this patch masks a deeper issue,
> > > e.g. if the runtime_resume code path does in fact directly poll outputs,
> > > that would seem wrong.  Runtime resume should merely make the card
> > > accessible, i.e. reinstate power if necessary, put into PCI_D0,
> > > restore registers, etc.  Output polling should be scheduled
> > > asynchronously.
> > 
> > So: the reason that patch was added was mainly for the patches later in the
> > series that add guards around the i2c bus and aux bus, since both of those
> > require that the device be awake for it to work. Currently, the spot where
> > it
> > would recurse is:
> 
> Okay, the PCI device is suspending and the nvkm_i2c_aux_acquire()
> wants it in resumed state, so is waiting forever for the device to
> runtime suspend in order to resume it again immediately afterwards.
> 
> The deadlock in the stack trace you've posted could be resolved using
> the technique I used in d61a5c106351 by adding the following to
> include/linux/pm_runtime.h:
> 
> static inline bool pm_runtime_status_suspending(struct device *dev)
> {
> 	return dev->power.runtime_status == RPM_SUSPENDING;
> }
> 
> static inline bool is_pm_work(struct device *dev)
> {
> 	struct work_struct *work = current_work();
> 
> 	return work && work->func == dev->power.work;
> }
> 
> Then adding this to nvkm_i2c_aux_acquire():
> 
> 	struct device *dev = pad->i2c->subdev.device->dev;
> 
> 	if (!(is_pm_work(dev) && pm_runtime_status_suspending(dev))) {
> 		ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
> 		if (ret < 0 && ret != -EACCES)
> 			return ret;
> 	}
> 
> But here's the catch:  This only works for an *async* runtime suspend.
> It doesn't work for pm_runtime_put_sync(), pm_runtime_suspend() etc,
> because then the runtime suspend is executed in the context of the caller,
> not in the context of dev->power.work.
> 
> So it's not a full solution, but hopefully something that gets you
> going.  I'm not really familiar with the code paths leading to
> nvkm_i2c_aux_acquire() to come up with a full solution off the top
> of my head I'm afraid.
OK-I was considering doing something similar to that commit beforehand but I
wasn't sure if I was going to just be hacking around an actual issue. That
doesn't seem to be the case. This is very helpful and hopefully I should be able
to figure something out from this, thanks!

> 
> Note, it's not sufficient to just check pm_runtime_status_suspending(dev)
> because if the runtime_suspend is carried out concurrently by something
> else, this will return true but it's not guaranteed that the device is
> actually kept awake until the i2c communication has been fully performed.
> 
> HTH,
> 
> Lukas