lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 07/10] PCI: Add 'rcec' field to pci_dev for associated RCiEPs
From
Date
Hi Bjorn,

On Wed, 2020-09-02 at 11:35 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 09:46:56AM -0700, Sean V Kelley wrote:
> > From: Qiuxu Zhuo <qiuxu.zhuo@intel.com>
> >
> > When attempting error recovery for an RCiEP associated with an RCEC
> > device,
> > there needs to be a way to update the Root Error Status, the
> > Uncorrectable
> > Error Status and the Uncorrectable Error Severity of the parent
> > RCEC.
> > So add the 'rcec' field to the pci_dev structure and provide a hook
> > for the
> > Root Port Driver to associate RCiEPs with their respective parent
> > RCEC.
> > --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/err.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/err.c
> > @@ -202,6 +202,12 @@ pci_ers_result_t pcie_do_recovery(struct
> > pci_dev *dev,
> > pci_walk_dev_affected(dev, report_frozen_detected,
> > &status);
> > if (pci_pcie_type(dev) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_END) {
> > status = flr_on_rciep(dev);
> > + /*
> > + * The callback only clears the Root Error
> > Status
> > + * of the RCEC (see aer.c).
> > + */
> > + if (dev->rcec)
> > + reset_link(dev->rcec);
> > if (status != PCI_ERS_RESULT_RECOVERED) {
> > pci_warn(dev, "function level reset
> > failed\n");
> > goto failed;
> > @@ -245,7 +251,11 @@ pci_ers_result_t pcie_do_recovery(struct
> > pci_dev *dev,
> > pci_pcie_type(dev) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_EC)) {
> > pci_aer_clear_device_status(dev);
> > pci_aer_clear_nonfatal_status(dev);
> > + } else if (pci_pcie_type(dev) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_END && dev-
> > >rcec) {
> > + pci_aer_clear_device_status(dev->rcec);
> > + pci_aer_clear_nonfatal_status(dev->rcec);
>
> Conceptually, I'm not sure why we need the dev->rcec link. The error
> was *reported* via the RCEC, so don't we know the RCEC up front,
> before we even identify the RCiEP? Can't we just remember that and
> dispense with dev->rcec?

However, we can also get errors reported by that same RCEC that are not
related to the associated RCiEPs. Further, an RCiEP in reporting an
error will trigger logging to the Root Error Command/Status and Error
Source Identification registers of the associated RCEC. The assumption
in pcie_do_recovery() here is that I can cover both scenarios.

In a new revision of this patch series...

if (type != PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_END) {
if (pcie_aer_is_native(bridge))
pcie_clear_device_status(bridge);
pci_aer_clear_nonfatal_status(bridge);
}

I've a new revision that makes use of the earlier thread discussing
'bridge' assignment conditionally and when it makes sense to refer to
the 'dev'.

.

>
> I'm also concerned that if we fail to identify the RCiEP (i.e., we
> don't have a valid "dev" to use dev->rcec), we will fail to clear the
> error status bits. I think it's possible that the RCEC will report
> an
> error, but the RCiEP that generated the error message is not
> responding so we can't find it.

That's the association which is enumerated at boot by BIOS either
through the bitmap or through the next/last bus range. Are you
describing a scenario in which during enumeration of the RCECs/RCiEPs
the relationships are not discovered?

The second bit you describe is where the error is reported and the
RCiEP is not responding. I wonder if that will eventually trigger an
error from the RCEC. But you are right such a scenario could happen so
you are getting the error but the device is not present or may not even
have been present from BIOS perspective?

Sean


>
> > }
> > +
> > pci_info(dev, "device recovery successful\n");
> > return status;
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/portdrv_pci.c
> > b/drivers/pci/pcie/portdrv_pci.c
> > index d5b109499b10..a64e88b7166b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/portdrv_pci.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/portdrv_pci.c
> > @@ -90,6 +90,18 @@ static const struct dev_pm_ops
> > pcie_portdrv_pm_ops = {
> > #define PCIE_PORTDRV_PM_OPS NULL
> > #endif /* !PM */
> >
> > +static int pcie_hook_rcec(struct pci_dev *pdev, void *data)
> > +{
> > + struct pci_dev *rcec = (struct pci_dev *)data;
> > +
> > + pdev->rcec = rcec;
> > + pci_dbg(rcec, "RCiEP(under an RCEC) %04x:%02x:%02x.%d\n",
> > + pci_domain_nr(pdev->bus), pdev->bus->number,
> > + PCI_SLOT(pdev->devfn), PCI_FUNC(pdev->devfn));
>
> If we do need dev->rcec, this should use pci_name() for the second
> device instead of formatting the name manually. I think I would
> connect this with the RCiEP instead of the RCEC, e.g.,
>
> pci_dbg(pdev, "PME & error events reported via %s\n",
> pci_name(rcec));
>
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > /*
> > * pcie_portdrv_probe - Probe PCI-Express port devices
> > * @dev: PCI-Express port device being probed
> > @@ -110,6 +122,9 @@ static int pcie_portdrv_probe(struct pci_dev
> > *dev,
> > (pci_pcie_type(dev) != PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_EC)))
> > return -ENODEV;
> >
> > + if (pci_pcie_type(dev) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_EC)
> > + pcie_walk_rcec(dev, pcie_hook_rcec, dev);
> > +
> > status = pcie_port_device_register(dev);
> > if (status)
> > return status;
> > diff --git a/include/linux/pci.h b/include/linux/pci.h
> > index c7fc5726872c..ba29816c827b 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/pci.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/pci.h
> > @@ -330,6 +330,7 @@ struct pci_dev {
> > #ifdef CONFIG_PCIEPORTBUS
> > u16 rcec_cap; /* RCEC capability offset */
> > struct rcec_ext *rcec_ext; /* RCEC cached assoc. endpoint
> > extended capabilities */
> > + struct pci_dev *rcec; /* Associated RCEC device
> > */
> > #endif
> > u8 pcie_cap; /* PCIe capability offset */
> > u8 msi_cap; /* MSI capability offset */
> > --
> > 2.28.0
> >

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-03 00:25    [W:0.127 / U:0.452 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site