Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180503191126.GA15790@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>
References: <56a8953c-d833-837c-57d5-fe758d4db02a@canonical.com>
 <CAJZ5v0j8GAatWoAra37y3c-ti2Ft5am75KONgEkjB6AaypkCqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <ae84e595-dede-1409-4aff-3a29a310f2ba@canonical.com> <CAJZ5v0gapMMf=KqBAoDTv0SUBeusrUFPyEz6Z4k8Y3Szizdm5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <1f67f00a-8141-f9af-2120-c78f7cfecb1d@canonical.com> <CAJZ5v0iPsoxCLxsq156RvyZ1cWtM9jNMLUPMnE3cqi5r1jk8jg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180501195501.GB11698@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>
 <CAJZ5v0geYMuzcEhCKcaCHNP-j_ceeyZM0CqEaOTeE3jqVd6zaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <59bc04f8-e819-46c0-651d-a00eef4d34f8@canonical.com> <20180503191126.GA15790@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 3 May 2018 23:29:18 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0gMY03BWN8D0Of=+bHf22jUgnmyDF8_OsRtQTX-YuMdew@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regression] PCI / PM: Simplify device wakeup settings code
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc:     Joseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury@canonical.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux PCI <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        1745646@bugs.launchpad.net,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 9:11 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 02:29:02PM -0400, Joseph Salisbury wrote:
>> On 05/02/2018 06:41 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 9:55 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 10:34:29AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> >>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:22 PM, Joseph Salisbury
>> >>> <joseph.salisbury@canonical.com> wrote:
>> >>>> On 04/16/2018 11:58 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 5:31 PM, Joseph Salisbury
>> >>>>> <joseph.salisbury@canonical.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>> On 04/13/2018 05:34 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 7:56 PM, Joseph Salisbury
>> >>>>>>> <joseph.salisbury@canonical.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> Hi Rafael,
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> A kernel bug report was opened against Ubuntu [0].  After a kernel
>> >>>>>>>> bisect, it was found that reverting the following two commits resolved
>> >>>>>>>> this bug:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> 0ce3fcaff929 ("PCI / PM: Restore PME Enable after config space restoration")
>> >>>>>>>> 0847684cfc5f("PCI / PM: Simplify device wakeup settings code")
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> This is a regression introduced in v4.13-rc1 and still exists in
>> >>>>>>>> mainline.  The bug causes the battery to drain when the system is
>> >>>>>>>> powered down and unplugged, which does not happed prior to these two
>> >>>>>>>> commits.
>> >>>>>>> What system and what do you mean by "powered down"?  How much time
>> >>>>>>> does it take for the battery to drain now?
>> >>>>>> By powered down, the bug reporter is saying physically powered off and
>> >>>>>> unplugged.  The system is a HP laptop:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> dmi.chassis.vendor: HP
>> >>>>>> dmi.product.family: 103C_5335KV HP Notebook
>> >>>>>> dmi.product.name: HP Notebook
>> >>>>>> vendor_id    : GenuineIntel
>> >>>>>> cpu family    : 6
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> The bisect actually pointed to commit de3ef1e, but reverting
>> >>>>>>>> these two commits fixes the issue.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> I was hoping to get your feedback, since you are the patch author.  Do
>> >>>>>>>> you think gathering any additional data will help diagnose this issue,
>> >>>>>>>> or would it be best to submit a revert request?
>> >>>>>>> First, reverting these is not an option or you will break systems
>> >>>>>>> relying on them now.  4.13 is three releases back at this point.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Second, your issue appears to be related to the suspend/shutdown path
>> >>>>>>> whereas commit 0ce3fcaff929 is mostly about resume, so presumably the
>> >>>>>>> change in pci_enable_wake() causes the problem to happen.  Can you try
>> >>>>>>> to revert this one alone and see if that helps?
>> >>>>>> A test kernel with commits 0ce3fcaff929 and de3ef1eb1cd0 reverted was
>> >>>>>> tested.  However, the test kernel still exhibited the bug.
>> >>>>> So essentially the bisection result cannot be trusted.
>> >>>> We performed some more testing and confirmed just a revert of the
>> >>>> following commit resolves the bug:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 0847684cfc5f0 ("PCI / PM: Simplify device wakeup settings code")
>> >>> Thanks for confirming this!
>> >>>
>> >>>> Can you think of any suggestions to help debug further?
>> >>> The root cause of the regression is likely the change in
>> >>> pci_enable_wake() removing the device_may_wakeup() check from it.
>> >>>
>> >>> Probably, one of the drivers in the platform calls pci_enable_wake()
>> >>> directly from its ->shutdown() callback and that causes the device to
>> >>> be set up for system wakeup which in turn causes the power draw while
>> >>> the system is off to increase.
>> >>>
>> >>> I would look at the PCI drivers used on that platform to find which of
>> >>> them call pci_enable_wake() directly from ->shutdown() and I would
>> >>> make these calls conditional on device_may_wakeup().
>> >> I took a quick look with
>> >>
>> >>   git grep -E "pci_enable_wake\(.*[^0]\);|device_may_wakeup"
>> >>
>> >> and didn't notice any pci_enable_wake() callers that called
>> >> device_may_wakeup() first.
>> > I've just look at a bunch of network drivers doing that.
>> >
>> > It looks like I may need to restore __pci_enable_wake() with an extra
>> > "runtime" argument for internal use.
>> >
>> > Joseph, can you ask the reporter to test the Bjorn's patch, please?
>>
>> The bug reporter has testing Bjorn's patch.  It did in fact resolve the
>> bug.  Thanks for the quick help, Rafael and Bjorn!
>
> Just as a word of caution, I think Rafael said my patch was not the
> right fix because it would break something else.  So I would wait for
> a better patch from Rafael before actually resolving this issue.

I'll do my best to provide one in the next couple of days.