From: Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@huawei.com>
To: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
Cc: "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"rjw@rjwysocki.net" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
"bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
"lenb@kernel.org" <lenb@kernel.org>,
"tony.luck@intel.com" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
"dan.carpenter@oracle.com" <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
"zhangliguang@linux.alibaba.com" <zhangliguang@linux.alibaba.com>,
"andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com"
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
"Wangkefeng (OS Kernel Lab)" <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>,
"jroedel@suse.de" <jroedel@suse.de>,
yangyicong <yangyicong@huawei.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@huawei.com>,
tanxiaofei <tanxiaofei@huawei.com>,
Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v9 1/2] ACPI / APEI: Add support to notify the vendor specific HW errors
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 13:42:04 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <270ca5910c454f8f85ccba45d5ec00aa@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f6d4282e-08a4-7832-9dbc-6a4c0366eefd@arm.com>
Hi James,
Thanks for reviewing the patch and the modifications.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: James Morse [mailto:james.morse@arm.com]
>Sent: 18 June 2020 19:20
>To: Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@huawei.com>
>Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org; linux-pci@vger.kernel.org; linux-
>kernel@vger.kernel.org; rjw@rjwysocki.net; bp@alien8.de; lenb@kernel.org;
>tony.luck@intel.com; dan.carpenter@oracle.com;
>zhangliguang@linux.alibaba.com; andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com;
>Wangkefeng (OS Kernel Lab) <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>;
>jroedel@suse.de; yangyicong <yangyicong@huawei.com>; Jonathan Cameron
><jonathan.cameron@huawei.com>; tanxiaofei <tanxiaofei@huawei.com>
>Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/2] ACPI / APEI: Add support to notify the vendor
>specific HW errors
>
>Hi Shiju,
>
>On 15/06/2020 10:53, Shiju Jose wrote:
>> Add support to notify the vendor specific non-fatal HW errors to the
>> drivers for the error recovery.
>
>This doesn't apply cleanly to v5.8-rc1... thanks for waiting for the merge
>window to finish, but please rebase onto the latest and greatest kernel!
V10 was posted based on v5.8-rc1.
>
>I'm glad the notifier chains for stuff that should be built-in has gone.
>(In my opinion, the RAS code should be moving in the direction of having less
>code run between being told of an error, and the handler running. Notifier
>chains for things like memory-errors was moving in the wrong direction!)
>
>
>The Kfifo and pool are adding complexity I don't think you need.
>Please make it clear from the naming this is for vendor records. (what is an
>event?)
>
>The memcpy() for the records is annoying, but eliminating it takes some
>really invasive changes. Lets live with it for now.
Ok.
>
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c index
>> 24c9642e8fc7..854d8115cdfc 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
>> @@ -63,6 +64,11 @@
>> #define GHES_ESTATUS_CACHES_SIZE 4
>>
>> #define GHES_ESTATUS_IN_CACHE_MAX_NSEC 10000000000ULL
>> +
>> +#define GHES_EVENT_RING_SIZE 256
>> +#define GHES_GDATA_POOL_MIN_ALLOC_ORDER 3
>> +#define GHES_GDATA_POOL_MIN_SIZE 65536
>
>Huh. Another pool of memory, and we don't know if this will ever be used.
>Can we allocate from ghes_estatus_pool instead?
>
>ghes_estatus_pool is already scaled with the number of error sources
>firmware describes in ghes_estatus_pool_init(), so it should be big enough.
>
>ghes_estatus_pool already has multiple users, estatus_nodes for work
>deferred from NMI come from here, as do ghes_estatus_caches for the low-
>pass filter thing.
Ok.
>
>
>> @@ -122,6 +128,19 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(ghes_list_mutex);
>> */
>> static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(ghes_notify_lock_irq);
>>
>> +struct ghes_event_entry {
>
>ghes_vendor_record_entry ?
>
>> + struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata;
>> + int error_severity;
>> +};
>
>> +static DEFINE_KFIFO(ghes_event_ring, struct ghes_event_entry,
>> + GHES_EVENT_RING_SIZE);
>> +
>> +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(ghes_event_ring_lock);
>
>Do you need the FIFO behaviour?
>If you put a work_struct in the struct and schedule_work() that, these would
>run in any order, and it would be less code.
>
>
>> +static struct gen_pool *ghes_gdata_pool; static unsigned long
>> +ghes_gdata_pool_size_request;
>> +
>> static struct gen_pool *ghes_estatus_pool; static unsigned long
>> ghes_estatus_pool_size_request;
>
>Please use the existing ghes_estatus_pool.
>
>
>> @@ -188,6 +207,40 @@ int ghes_estatus_pool_init(int num_ghes)
>
>[...]
>
>> +static int ghes_gdata_pool_init(void) {
>> + unsigned long addr, len;
>> + int rc;
>> +
>> + ghes_gdata_pool =
>gen_pool_create(GHES_GDATA_POOL_MIN_ALLOC_ORDER, -1);
>> + if (!ghes_gdata_pool)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + if (ghes_gdata_pool_size_request < GHES_GDATA_POOL_MIN_SIZE)
>> + ghes_gdata_pool_size_request =
>GHES_GDATA_POOL_MIN_SIZE;
>> +
>> + len = ghes_gdata_pool_size_request;
>> + addr = (unsigned long)vmalloc(PAGE_ALIGN(len));
>> + if (!addr)
>> + goto err_pool_alloc;
>
>> + vmalloc_sync_mappings();
>(This isn't needed anymore. See commit 73f693c3a705 ("mm: remove
>vmalloc_sync_(un)mappings()"))
>
>
>> + rc = gen_pool_add(ghes_gdata_pool, addr, PAGE_ALIGN(len), -1);
>> + if (rc)
>> + goto err_pool_add;
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> +err_pool_add:
>> + vfree((void *)addr);
>> +
>> +err_pool_alloc:
>> + gen_pool_destroy(ghes_gdata_pool);
>> +
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> +}
>
>But: using ghes_estatus_pool would avoid this duplication.
>
>
>> @@ -247,6 +300,10 @@ static struct ghes *ghes_new(struct
>acpi_hest_generic *generic)
>> goto err_unmap_status_addr;
>> }
>>
>> + ghes_gdata_pool_size_request += generic->records_to_preallocate *
>> + generic->max_sections_per_record *
>> + generic->max_raw_data_length;
>> +
>
>Careful, I think ghes_probe() can run in parallel on different CPUs. You can
>certainly unbind/rebind it from user-space.
>
>I recall these max this/that/preallocate stuff are junk values on some
>platform.
>You'd at least need to cap it to sane maximum value.
>
>But: Using ghes_estatus_pool would use ghes_estatus_pool_init()'s sizes,
>which allocates 64K for each error source.
>
>History: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-acpi/msg84238.html
>
>
>> @@ -490,6 +547,68 @@ static void ghes_handle_aer(struct
>> acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata)
>
>[...]
>
>> +static void ghes_event_work_func(struct work_struct *work) {
>> + struct ghes_event_entry entry;
>> + u32 len;
>> +
>> + while (kfifo_get(&ghes_event_ring, &entry)) {
>> + blocking_notifier_call_chain(&ghes_event_notify_list,
>> + entry.error_severity,
>> + entry.gdata);
>> + len = acpi_hest_get_record_size(entry.gdata);
>> + gen_pool_free(ghes_gdata_pool, (unsigned long)entry.gdata,
>len);
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>> +static DECLARE_WORK(ghes_event_work, ghes_event_work_func);
>> +
>> +static void ghes_handle_non_standard_event(struct
>acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata,
>> + int sev)
>> +{
>> + u32 len;
>
>> + struct ghes_event_entry event_entry;
>
>> + len = acpi_hest_get_record_size(gdata);
>> + event_entry.gdata = (void *)gen_pool_alloc(ghes_gdata_pool, len);
>> + if (event_entry.gdata) {
>> + memcpy(event_entry.gdata, gdata, len);
>> + event_entry.error_severity = sev;
>> +
>> + if (kfifo_in_spinlocked(&ghes_event_ring, &event_entry, 1,
>
>... event_entry is on the stack ...
>
Ok.
>
>> + &ghes_event_ring_lock))
>> + schedule_work(&ghes_event_work);
>> + else
>> + pr_warn(GHES_PFX "ghes event queue full\n");
>> + }
>> +}
>
>
>I think the kfifo is adding un-needed complexity here.
Ok.
>
>
>> diff --git a/include/acpi/ghes.h b/include/acpi/ghes.h index
>> e3f1cddb4ac8..a3dd82069069 100644
>> --- a/include/acpi/ghes.h
>> +++ b/include/acpi/ghes.h
>> @@ -50,6 +50,34 @@ enum {
>
[...]
>> +void ghes_unregister_event_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb); #else
>
>Please make it clear from the names these are for vendor events, that the
>kernel would otherwise ignore. It looks like these are for everything. Drivers
>have no business trying to handle the errors that are handled by things like
>memory_failure().
>
>~
>
>I would post a version of this to illustrate, but there are comments on patch 2
>too.
>
>Something like:
>http://www.linux-arm.org/git?p=linux-
>jm.git;a=commitdiff;h=9c6859f3146001cd9f8edfaf965232cb99c7dc42
>
>(caveat emptor: I've only build tested it)
I tested your changes and worked fine.
Should I send this patch along with the updated patch 2?
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>James
Thanks,
Shiju
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-19 13:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-15 9:53 [PATCH v9 0/2] ACPI / APEI: Add support to notify the vendor specific HW errors Shiju Jose
2020-06-15 9:53 ` [PATCH v9 1/2] " Shiju Jose
2020-06-16 22:56 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-06-17 7:44 ` Shiju Jose
2020-06-18 18:20 ` James Morse
2020-06-19 13:42 ` Shiju Jose [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=270ca5910c454f8f85ccba45d5ec00aa@huawei.com \
--to=shiju.jose@huawei.com \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=jroedel@suse.de \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=tanxiaofei@huawei.com \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com \
--cc=yangyicong@huawei.com \
--cc=zhangliguang@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.