From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Shengwei Luo <luoshengwei@huawei.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@huawei.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
"Daniel Ferguson" <danielf@os.amperecomputing.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
Shuai Xue <xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
"Tony Luck" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
Tyler Baicar <tbaicar@codeaurora.org>,
"Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org>, Xie XiuQi <xiexiuqi@huawei.com>,
<linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-edac@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Jason Tian <jason@os.amperecomputing.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] RAS: Report all ARM processor CPER information to userspace
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 15:53:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240701155304.00005257@Huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <75b5c9a47c9caf9490c5eedd85e201b7bdb8bf57.1719484498.git.mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>
On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 12:36:08 +0200
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> wrote:
> From: Shengwei Luo <luoshengwei@huawei.com>
>
> The ARM processor CPER record was added at UEFI 2.6, and hasn't
> any changes up to UEFI 2.10 on its struct.
>
> Yet, the original arm_event trace code added on changeset
> e9279e83ad1f ("trace, ras: add ARM processor error trace event") is
> incomplete, as it only traces some fields of UAPI 2.6 table N.16,
> not exporting at all any information from tables N.17 to N.29 of
> the record.
>
> This is not enough for user to take appropriate action or to log
> what exactly happened.
>
> According to UEFI_2_9 specification chapter N2.4.4, the ARM processor
> error section includes:
>
> - several (ERR_INFO_NUM) ARM processor error information structures
> (Tables N.17 to N.20);
> - several (CONTEXT_INFO_NUM) ARM processor context information
> structures (Tables N.21 to N.29);
> - several vendor specific error information structures. The
> size is given by Section Length minus the size of the other
> fields.
>
> In addition to those data, it also exports two fields that are
> parsed by the GHES driver when firmware reports it, e. g.:
>
> - error severity
> - cpu logical index
>
> Report all of these information to userspace via trace uAPI, So that
so (no capital S)
> userspace can properly record the error and take decisions related
> to cpu core isolation according to error severity and other info.
>
> After this patch, all the data from ARM Processor record from table
> N.16 are directly or indirectly visible on userspace:
>
> ====================================== =============================
> UEFI field on table N.16 ARM Processor trace fields
> ====================================== =============================
> Validation handled when filling data for
> affinity MPIDR and running
> state.
> ERR_INFO_NUM pei_len
> CONTEXT_INFO_NUM ctx_len
> Section Length indirectly reported by
> pei_len, ctx_len and oem_len
> Error affinity level affinity
> MPIDR_EL1 mpidr
> MIDR_EL1 midr
> Running State running_state
> PSCI State psci_state
> Processor Error Information Structure pei_err - count at pei_len
> Processor Context ctx_err- count at ctx_len
> Vendor Specific Error Info oem - count at oem_len
> ====================================== =============================
>
> It should be noticed that decoding of tables N.17 to N.29, if needed,
> will be handled on userspace. That gives more flexibility, as there
in userspace
> won't be any need to flood the Kernel with micro-architecture specific
> error decoding).
architecture specific (this isn't specific to an implementation of the
arm architecture - if it were it wouldn't be in the uefi spec).
> Also, decoding the other fields require a complex logic, and should
require complex logic. (the next bit seems unnecessary detail to me).
> be done for each of the several values inside the record field.
> So, let userspace daemons like rasdaemon decode them, parsing such
> tables and having vendor-specific micro-architecture-specific decoders.
>
> [mchehab: modified patch description and fix coding style]
> Fixes: e9279e83ad1f ("trace, ras: add ARM processor error trace event")
> Signed-off-by: Shengwei Luo <luoshengwei@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Tian <jason@os.amperecomputing.com>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Ferguson <danielf@os.amperecomputing.com>
> Tested-by: Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>
> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
> Link: https://uefi.org/specs/UEFI/2.10/Apx_N_Common_Platform_Error_Record.html#arm-processor-error-section
A few minor things inline.
Jonathan
> diff --git a/drivers/ras/ras.c b/drivers/ras/ras.c
> index 5d94ab79c8c3..b515659cc8cc 100644
> --- a/drivers/ras/ras.c
> +++ b/drivers/ras/ras.c
> @@ -52,10 +52,51 @@ void log_non_standard_event(const guid_t *sec_type, const guid_t *fru_id,
> trace_non_standard_event(sec_type, fru_id, fru_text, sev, err, len);
> }
>
> -void log_arm_hw_error(struct cper_sec_proc_arm *err)
> +void log_arm_hw_error(struct cper_sec_proc_arm *err, const u8 sev)
> {
> #if defined(CONFIG_ARM) || defined(CONFIG_ARM64)
> - trace_arm_event(err);
> + struct cper_arm_err_info *err_info;
> + struct cper_arm_ctx_info *ctx_info;
> + u8 *ven_err_data;
> + u32 ctx_len = 0;
> + int n, sz, cpu;
> + s32 vsei_len;
> + u32 pei_len;
> + u8 *pei_err;
> + u8 *ctx_err;
> +
> + pei_len = sizeof(struct cper_arm_err_info) * err->err_info_num;
> + pei_err = (u8 *)err + sizeof(struct cper_sec_proc_arm);
> +
> + err_info = (struct cper_arm_err_info *)(err + 1);
After some staring... Isn't pei_err == err_info here?
The err_info assignment is nicer, so I'd just use that.
> + ctx_info = (struct cper_arm_ctx_info *)(err_info + err->err_info_num);
> + ctx_err = ctx_info;
> + for (n = 0; n < err->context_info_num; n++) {
> + sz = sizeof(struct cper_arm_ctx_info) + ctx_info->size;
You 'could' add a variable length array on end of struct cper_arm_ctx_info
just to be able to use struct size here, but probably not worth it.
> + ctx_info = (struct cper_arm_ctx_info *)((long)ctx_info + sz);
I'd cast to a (u8 *) rather than a long so it's clear this is byte sized
arithmetic
> + ctx_len += sz;
> + }
> +
> + vsei_len = err->section_length - (sizeof(struct cper_sec_proc_arm) +
> + pei_len + ctx_len);
> + if (vsei_len < 0) {
> + pr_warn(FW_BUG
> + "section length: %d\n", err->section_length);
> + pr_warn(FW_BUG
> + "section length is too small\n");
> + pr_warn(FW_BUG
> + "firmware-generated error record is incorrect\n");
> + vsei_len = 0;
> + }
> + ven_err_data = (u8 *)ctx_info;
> +
> + cpu = GET_LOGICAL_INDEX(err->mpidr);
> + /* when return value is invalid, set cpu index to -1 */
> + if (cpu < 0)
> + cpu = -1;
> +
> + trace_arm_event(err, pei_err, pei_len, ctx_err, ctx_len,
> + ven_err_data, (u32)vsei_len, sev, cpu);
> #endif
> }
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/ras.h b/include/linux/ras.h
> index a64182bc72ad..6025afe5736a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/ras.h
> +++ b/include/linux/ras.h
> @@ -24,8 +24,7 @@ int __init parse_cec_param(char *str);
> void log_non_standard_event(const guid_t *sec_type,
> const guid_t *fru_id, const char *fru_text,
> const u8 sev, const u8 *err, const u32 len);
> -void log_arm_hw_error(struct cper_sec_proc_arm *err);
> -
> +void log_arm_hw_error(struct cper_sec_proc_arm *err, const u8 sev);
> #else
> static inline void
> log_non_standard_event(const guid_t *sec_type,
> @@ -33,7 +32,7 @@ log_non_standard_event(const guid_t *sec_type,
> const u8 sev, const u8 *err, const u32 len)
> { return; }
> static inline void
> -log_arm_hw_error(struct cper_sec_proc_arm *err) { return; }
> +log_arm_hw_error(struct cper_sec_proc_arm *err, const u8 sev) { return; }
Silly question and obviously nothing to do with this patch, but why return?
> #endif
>
> struct atl_err {
> @@ -52,5 +51,14 @@ static inline void amd_retire_dram_row(struct atl_err *err) { }
> static inline unsigned long
> amd_convert_umc_mca_addr_to_sys_addr(struct atl_err *err) { return -EINVAL; }
> #endif /* CONFIG_AMD_ATL */
> -
I'd keep a blank line here.
> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARM) || defined(CONFIG_ARM64)
...
> diff --git a/include/ras/ras_event.h b/include/ras/ras_event.h
> index 7c47151d5c72..ce5214f008eb 100644
> --- a/include/ras/ras_event.h
> +++ b/include/ras/ras_event.h
> @@ -168,11 +168,24 @@ TRACE_EVENT(mc_event,
> * This event is generated when hardware detects an ARM processor error
> * has occurred. UEFI 2.6 spec section N.2.4.4.
> */
> +#define APEIL "ARM Processor Err Info data len"
> +#define APEID "ARM Processor Err Info raw data"
> +#define APECIL "ARM Processor Err Context Info data len"
> +#define APECID "ARM Processor Err Context Info raw data"
> +#define VSEIL "Vendor Specific Err Info data len"
> +#define VSEID "Vendor Specific Err Info raw data"
> TRACE_EVENT(arm_event,
>
> - TP_PROTO(const struct cper_sec_proc_arm *proc),
> + TP_PROTO(const struct cper_sec_proc_arm *proc, const u8 *pei_err,
> + const u32 pei_len,
> + const u8 *ctx_err,
Weird wrapping choice... Either pull pei_err down, or wrap the
remaining lines to 80 chars as well.
Or maybe pair pointer and length as appropriate.
> + const u32 ctx_len,
> + const u8 *oem,
> + const u32 oem_len,
> + u8 sev,
> + int cpu),
>
> - TP_ARGS(proc),
> + TP_ARGS(proc, pei_err, pei_len, ctx_err, ctx_len, oem, oem_len, sev, cpu),
>
> TP_STRUCT__entry(
> __field(u64, mpidr)
> @@ -180,6 +193,14 @@ TRACE_EVENT(arm_event,
> __field(u32, running_state)
> __field(u32, psci_state)
> __field(u8, affinity)
> + __field(u32, pei_len)
> + __dynamic_array(u8, buf, pei_len)
> + __field(u32, ctx_len)
> + __dynamic_array(u8, buf1, ctx_len)
> + __field(u32, oem_len)
> + __dynamic_array(u8, buf2, oem_len)
> + __field(u8, sev)
> + __field(int, cpu)
> ),
>
> TP_fast_assign(
> @@ -199,12 +220,29 @@ TRACE_EVENT(arm_event,
> __entry->running_state = ~0;
> __entry->psci_state = ~0;
> }
> + __entry->pei_len = pei_len;
> + memcpy(__get_dynamic_array(buf), pei_err, pei_len);
> + __entry->ctx_len = ctx_len;
> + memcpy(__get_dynamic_array(buf1), ctx_err, ctx_len);
> + __entry->oem_len = oem_len;
> + memcpy(__get_dynamic_array(buf2), oem, oem_len);
> + __entry->sev = sev;
> + __entry->cpu = cpu;
> ),
>
> - TP_printk("affinity level: %d; MPIDR: %016llx; MIDR: %016llx; "
> - "running state: %d; PSCI state: %d",
> + TP_printk("cpu: %d; error: %d; affinity level: %d; MPIDR: %016llx; MIDR: %016llx; "
> + "running state: %d; PSCI state: %d; "
Given the string is broken up already, why have a long first line?
> + "%s: %d; %s: %s; %s: %d; %s: %s; %s: %d; %s: %s",
> + __entry->cpu,
> + __entry->sev,
> __entry->affinity, __entry->mpidr, __entry->midr,
> - __entry->running_state, __entry->psci_state)
> + __entry->running_state, __entry->psci_state,
> + APEIL, __entry->pei_len, APEID,
> + __print_hex(__get_dynamic_array(buf), __entry->pei_len),
> + APECIL, __entry->ctx_len, APECID,
> + __print_hex(__get_dynamic_array(buf1), __entry->ctx_len),
> + VSEIL, __entry->oem_len, VSEID,
> + __print_hex(__get_dynamic_array(buf2), __entry->oem_len))
> );
>
> /*
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-07-01 14:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-06-27 10:36 [PATCH v2 0/2] Add other fields to ARM trace event Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2024-06-27 10:36 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] RAS: ACPI: APEI: add conditional compilation to ARM error report functions Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2024-07-01 14:14 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-06-27 10:36 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] RAS: Report all ARM processor CPER information to userspace Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2024-06-27 13:28 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2024-07-01 14:53 ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240701155304.00005257@Huawei.com \
--to=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=danielf@os.amperecomputing.com \
--cc=dave.jiang@intel.com \
--cc=ira.weiny@intel.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=jason@os.amperecomputing.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-edac@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luoshengwei@huawei.com \
--cc=mchehab+huawei@kernel.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=shiju.jose@huawei.com \
--cc=tbaicar@codeaurora.org \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=xiexiuqi@huawei.com \
--cc=xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.