Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-13161-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CGME20231227084252epcas2p3b063f7852f81f82cd0a31afd7f404db4@epcas2p3.samsung.com>
 <5754861.DvuYhMxLoT@kreacher> <6019796.lOV4Wx5bFT@kreacher>
 <4874693.GXAFRqVoOG@kreacher> <ZY3auVvVzxwTmAX8@linux.intel.com>
 <CAJZ5v0gns5zeLEk39NGwjLy40wzHAHDWYBYapWwQWcJ9jrF-3Q@mail.gmail.com> <ZY44KH2wGIUyIZp6@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZY44KH2wGIUyIZp6@linux.intel.com>
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 17:36:01 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jWSH_+wC7P=bBV8uKNp1PBUjkE06Ec6HR1Zd5as8GQ2g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] async: Introduce async_schedule_dev_nocall()
To: Stanislaw Gruszka <stanislaw.gruszka@linux.intel.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, 
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, 
	Youngmin Nam <youngmin.nam@samsung.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	d7271.choe@samsung.com, janghyuck.kim@samsung.com, hyesoo.yu@samsung.com, 
	Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 3:54=E2=80=AFPM Stanislaw Gruszka
<stanislaw.gruszka@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 02:37:36PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > +bool async_schedule_dev_nocall(async_func_t func, struct device *d=
ev)
> > > > +{
> > > > +     struct async_entry *entry;
> > > > +
> > > > +     entry =3D kzalloc(sizeof(struct async_entry), GFP_KERNEL);
> > >
> > > Is GFP_KERNEL intended here ?
> >
> > Yes, it is.
> >
> > PM will be the only user of this, at least for now, and it all runs in
> > process context.
> >
> > > I think it's not safe since will
> > > be called from device_resume_noirq() .
> >
> > device_resume_noirq() runs in process context too.
> >
> > The name is somewhat confusing (sorry about that) and it means that
> > hardirq handlers (for the majority of IRQs) don't run in that resume
> > phase, but interrupts are enabled locally on all CPUs (this is
> > required for wakeup handling, among other things).
>
> Then my concern would be: if among devices with disabled IRQs are
> disk devices? Seems there are disk devices as well, and because
> GFP_KERNEL can start reclaiming memory by doing disk IO (write
> dirty pages for example), with disk driver interrupts disabled
> reclaiming process can not finish.
>
> I do not see how such possible infinite waiting for disk IO
> scenario is prevented here, did I miss something?

Well, it is not a concern, because the suspend code already prevents
the mm subsystem from trying too hard to find free memory.  See the
pm_restrict_gfp_mask() call in enter_state().

Otherwise, it would have been a problem for any GFP_KERNEL allocations
made during system-wide suspend-resume, not just in the _noirq phases.