"Kok, Auke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Kok, Auke wrote:
>> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>> This leaves with some basic questions.
>>> - Does it make sense for suspend/resume methods to request/free irqs?
>>> - Does it make sense for suspend/resume methods to allocate/free msi irqs?
>>> - Do we want pci_save/restore_cap to save/restore msi state?
>>>
>>> The path of least resistance is to just free the extra state and we
>>> are good. I'm just not quite certain that is sane and it has been a
>>> long day.
>>
>> we used to have a lengthy e1000_pci_save|restore_state in our code, which is
>> now gone, so I'm all for that. A separate pci_save_pxie|msi(x)_state for
>> every
>> driver seems completely unnecessary. I can't think of a use case where
>> saving+restoring everything hurts. That's what you want I presume.
I just want to understand why we have issues and to see if how we have
organized the suspend/resume path for dealing with msi irqs makes sense.
That is I haven't looked much at the suspend/resume path so I don't know it
well and I am afraid that your problem might be a symptom of a deeper
problem.
>> We currently free all irq's and msi before going into suspend in e1000, and I
>> think that is probably a good thing, somehow I can think of bad things
>> happening if we dont, but I admit that I haven't tried it without
>> alloc/free. We do this in e100 as well and it works.
Currently the irq code supports operation without the
free_irq/request_irq. Since the numbers given are pure linux
abstractions things should it is really a matter of just
saving/restoring the appropriate state.
>> Another motivation would be to leave this up to the driver: if the driver
>> chooses to free/alloc interrupts because it makes sense, you probably would
>> want to keep that choice available. Devices that don't need this can skip the
>> alloc/free, but leave the choice open for others.
>
> ah, looking at the code in e1000 we do:
>
> _suspend:
> pci_save_state();
> free_irq()
>
> _resume:
> pci_restore_state();
> alloc_irq();
>
> I suppose that's not good either, and the major cause of the warning in the
> first place.
Yep.
> Maybe I can rollback your latest patches and try to fix that mess by
> postponing
> the pci_save_state until after we free'd the irq's.
Below is an additional set of warnings that should help debug this.
The old code just got lucky that it triggered a warning when this happens.
diff --git a/drivers/pci/msi.c b/drivers/pci/msi.c
index 01869b1..5113913 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/msi.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/msi.c
@@ -613,6 +613,7 @@ int pci_enable_msi(struct pci_dev* dev)
return -EINVAL;
WARN_ON(!!dev->msi_enabled);
+ WARN_ON(!hlist_empty(&dev->saved_cap_space));
/* Check whether driver already requested for MSI-X irqs */
if (dev->msix_enabled) {
@@ -638,6 +639,8 @@ void pci_disable_msi(struct pci_dev* dev)
if (!dev->msi_enabled)
return;
+ WARN_ON(!hlist_empty(&dev->saved_cap_space));
+
msi_set_enable(dev, 0);
pci_intx(dev, 1); /* enable intx */
dev->msi_enabled = 0;
@@ -739,6 +742,7 @@ int pci_enable_msix(struct pci_dev* dev, struct msix_entry
*entries, int nvec)
}
}
WARN_ON(!!dev->msix_enabled);
+ WARN_ON(!hlist_empty(&dev->saved_cap_space));
/* Check whether driver already requested for MSI irq */
if (dev->msi_enabled) {
@@ -763,6 +767,8 @@ void pci_disable_msix(struct pci_dev* dev)
if (!dev->msix_enabled)
return;
+ WARN_ON(!hlist_empty(&dev->saved_cap_space));
+
msix_set_enable(dev, 0);
pci_intx(dev, 1); /* enable intx */
dev->msix_enabled = 0;
diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c
index bd44a48..4418839 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/pci.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c
@@ -677,6 +677,7 @@ pci_restore_state(struct pci_dev *dev)
}
pci_restore_pcix_state(dev);
pci_restore_msi_state(dev);
+ WARN_ON(!hlist_empty(&dev->saved_cap_space));
return 0;
}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
