lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Nov]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC v1 1/1] scsi: pm: Leave runtime resume along if block layer PM is enabled
Hi Bart,

Resent, typo fixed.

On 2020-11-15 04:57, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 11/12/20 10:30 PM, Can Guo wrote:
>> If block layer runtime PM is enabled for one SCSI device, then there
>> is
>> no need to forcibly change the SCSI device and its request queue's
>> runtime
>> PM status to active in scsi_dev_type_resume(), since block layer PM
>> shall
>> resume the SCSI device on the demand of bios.
>
> Please change "along" into "alone" in the subject of this patch (if
> that
> is what you meant).
>

Aha, sorry, a typo here.

>> + if (scsi_is_sdev_device(dev)) {
>> + struct scsi_device *sdev;
>>
>> + sdev = to_scsi_device(dev);
>
> A minor comment: I think that "struct scsi_device *sdev =
> to_scsi_device(dev);" fits on a single line.
>

Sure.

>> + * If block layer runtime PM is enabled for the SCSI device,
>> + * let block layer PM handle its runtime PM routines.
>
> Please change "its runtime PM routines" into "runtime resume" or
> similar. I think that will make the comment more clear.
>

Yes, thanks.

>> + if (sdev->request_queue->dev)
>> + return err;
>> + }
>
> The 'dev' member only exists in struct request_queue if CONFIG_PM=y so
> the above won't compile if CONFIG_PM=n. How about adding a function in
> include/linux/blk-pm.h to check whether or not runtime PM has been
> enabled?
>

You are right.

> Otherwise this patch looks good to me.
>

Actually, I am thinking about removing all the pm_runtime_set_active()
codes in both scsi_bus_resume_common() and scsi_dev_type_resume() - we
don't need to forcibly set the runtime PM status to RPM_ACTIVE for
either
SCSI host/target or SCSI devices.

Whenever we access one SCSI device, either block layer or somewhere in
the path (e.g. throgh sg IOCTL, sg_open() calls
scsi_autopm_get_device())
should runtime resume the device first, and the runtime PM framework
makes
sure device's parent (and its parent's parent and so on)gets resumed as
well.
Thus, the pm_runtime_set_active() seems redundant. What do you think?

Thanks,

Can Guo.

> Thanks,
>
> Bart.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-11-16 02:44    [W:0.058 / U:0.652 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site