lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v11 3/7] PCI/ERR: add mutex to synchronize recovery
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:46:34AM +0530, poza@codeaurora.org wrote:
> On 2018-02-24 05:15, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 01:54:00PM +0530, Oza Pawandeep wrote:
> > > This patch protects pci_do_recovery with mutex.
> >
> > pcie_do_recovery()
> >
> > Please explain why the mutex is necessary. What bad things happen
> > without the mutex?
> >
> > You named (some) of the other things "pcie"; maybe use "pcie" in the
> > mutex name as well so they look the same.
> >
>
> PCIe specification: 6.2.10
> When DPC is triggered due to receipt of an uncorrectable error Message, the
> Requester ID from the Message is recorded in the DPC Error Source ID
> register and that Message is discarded and not forwarded Upstream.
>
> So, having said that, what we think is we dont need Mutex, because in DPC
> enabled system either AER or DPC can be triggered, not both.
> so right now there is no need of guarding pcie_do_recovery() with mutex.
>
> but I was in a thought that; since pcie_do_recovery is supposed to be used
> by error clients,
> from sw architecture point of view, adding mutex takes care of concurrency
> if it exists (in corner cases, faulty hw where both AER and DPC triggered
> etc..)
>
> We can choose to drop this patch, since we dont require mutex.
> Bjorn, please advise.

I'm not trying to convince you that we don't need the mutex. My
point is that if we *do* need it, the changelog needs to say *why*
(and ideally the code will either have a comment or it will be obvious
from the code why it's necessary).

If we don't have a clear indication that it's required, I guess I
would omit it.

> > > Signed-off-by: Oza Pawandeep <poza@codeaurora.org>
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/pcie-err.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/pcie-err.c
> > > index fcd5add..f830975 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/pcie-err.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/pcie-err.c
> > > @@ -20,6 +20,8 @@
> > > #include <linux/pcieport_if.h>
> > > #include "portdrv.h"
> > >
> > > +static DEFINE_MUTEX(pci_err_recovery_lock);
> > > +
> > > struct aer_broadcast_data {
> > > enum pci_channel_state state;
> > > enum pci_ers_result result;
> > > @@ -283,6 +285,8 @@ void pcie_do_recovery(struct pci_dev *dev, int
> > > severity)
> > > pci_ers_result_t status, result = PCI_ERS_RESULT_RECOVERED;
> > > enum pci_channel_state state;
> > >
> > > + mutex_lock(&pci_err_recovery_lock);
> > > +
> > > if (severity == AER_FATAL)
> > > state = pci_channel_io_frozen;
> > > else
> > > @@ -326,9 +330,11 @@ void pcie_do_recovery(struct pci_dev *dev, int
> > > severity)
> > > report_resume);
> > >
> > > dev_info(&dev->dev, "Device recovery successful\n");
> > > + mutex_unlock(&pci_err_recovery_lock);
> > > return;
> > >
> > > failed:
> > > /* TODO: Should kernel panic here? */
> > > dev_info(&dev->dev, "Device recovery failed\n");
> > > + mutex_unlock(&pci_err_recovery_lock);
> > > }
> > > --
> > > Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm
> > > Technologies, Inc.,
> > > a Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
> > > a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
> > >

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-27 15:42    [W:0.096 / U:0.624 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site