All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
To: Smita Koralahalli <Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@amd.com>
Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	 Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	 Mahesh J Salgaonkar <mahesh@linux.ibm.com>,
	Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>,
	 Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8] PCI/DPC: Ignore Surprise Down error on hot removal
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 13:35:38 +0200 (EET)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ef39439f-e9ba-848d-8fef-73b446db15e5@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240207111256.110982-1-Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@amd.com>

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Smita Koralahalli wrote:

> According to PCIe r6.0 sec 6.7.6 [1], async removal with DPC may result in
> surprise down error. This error is expected and is just a side-effect of
> async remove.
> 
> Ignore surprise down error generated as a side-effect of async remove.
> Typically, this error is benign as the pciehp handler invoked by PDC
> or/and DLLSC alongside DPC, de-enumerates and brings down the device
> appropriately. But the error messages might confuse users. Get rid of
> these irritating log messages with a 1s delay while pciehp waits for
> dpc recovery.

dpc -> DPC.

> The implementation is as follows: On an async remove a DPC is triggered
> along with a Presence Detect State change and/or DLL State Change.
> Determine it's an async remove by checking for DPC Trigger Status in DPC
> Status Register and Surprise Down Error Status in AER Uncorrected Error
> Status to be non-zero. If true, treat the DPC event as a side-effect of
> async remove, clear the error status registers and continue with hot-plug
> tear down routines. If not, follow the existing routine to handle AER and
> DPC errors.
> 
> Please note that, masking Surprise Down Errors was explored as an
> alternative approach, but left due to the odd behavior that masking only
> avoids the interrupt, but still records an error per PCIe r6.0.1 Section
> 6.2.3.2.2. That stale error is going to be reported the next time some
> error other than Surprise Down is handled.
> 
> Dmesg before:
> 
>   pcieport 0000:00:01.4: DPC: containment event, status:0x1f01 source:0x0000
>   pcieport 0000:00:01.4: DPC: unmasked uncorrectable error detected
>   pcieport 0000:00:01.4: PCIe Bus Error: severity=Uncorrected (Fatal), type=Transaction Layer, (Receiver ID)
>   pcieport 0000:00:01.4:   device [1022:14ab] error status/mask=00000020/04004000
>   pcieport 0000:00:01.4:    [ 5] SDES (First)
>   nvme nvme2: frozen state error detected, reset controller
>   pcieport 0000:00:01.4: DPC: Data Link Layer Link Active not set in 1000 msec
>   pcieport 0000:00:01.4: AER: subordinate device reset failed
>   pcieport 0000:00:01.4: AER: device recovery failed
>   pcieport 0000:00:01.4: pciehp: Slot(16): Link Down
>   nvme2n1: detected capacity change from 1953525168 to 0
>   pci 0000:04:00.0: Removing from iommu group 49
> 
> Dmesg after:
> 
>  pcieport 0000:00:01.4: pciehp: Slot(16): Link Down
>  nvme1n1: detected capacity change from 1953525168 to 0
>  pci 0000:04:00.0: Removing from iommu group 37
> 
> [1] PCI Express Base Specification Revision 6.0, Dec 16 2021.
>     https://members.pcisig.com/wg/PCI-SIG/document/16609
> 
> Signed-off-by: Smita Koralahalli <Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@amd.com>
> Reviewed-by: Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>
> Reviewed-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> v2:
> 	Indentation is taken care. (Bjorn)
> 	Unrelevant dmesg logs are removed. (Bjorn)
> 	Rephrased commit message, to be clear on native vs FW-First
> 	handling. (Bjorn and Sathyanarayanan)
> 	Prefix changed from pciehp_ to dpc_. (Lukas)
> 	Clearing ARI and AtomicOp Requester are performed as a part of
> 	(de-)enumeration in pciehp_unconfigure_device(). (Lukas)
> 	Changed to clearing all optional capabilities in DEVCTL2.
> 	OS-First -> native. (Sathyanarayanan)
> 
> v3:
> 	Added error message when root port become inactive.
> 	Modified commit description to add more details.
> 	Rearranged code comments and function calls with no functional
> 	change.
> 	Additional check for is_hotplug_bridge.
> 	dpc_completed_waitqueue to wakeup pciehp handler.
> 	Cleared only Fatal error detected in DEVSTA.
> 
> v4:
> 	Made read+write conditional on "if (pdev->dpc_rp_extensions)"
> 	for DPC_RP_PIO_STATUS.
> 	Wrapped to 80 chars.
> 	Code comment for clearing PCI_STATUS and PCI_EXP_DEVSTA.
> 	Added pcie_wait_for_link() check.
> 	Removed error message for root port inactive as the message
> 	already existed.
> 	Check for is_hotplug_bridge before registers read.
> 	Section 6.7.6 of the PCIe Base Spec 6.0 -> PCIe r6.0 sec 6.7.6.
> 	Made code comment more meaningful.
> 
> v5:
> 	$SUBJECT correction.
> 	Added "Reviewed-by" tag.
> 	No code changes. Re-spin on latest base to get Bjorn's
> 	attention.
> 
> v6:
> 	Change to write 1's to clear error. (Sathyanarayanan)
> 
> v7:
> 	No changes. Rebasing on pci main branch as per Bjorn comments.
> 
> v8:
> 	Just return "status & PCI_ERR_UNC_SURPDN" instead of true and
> 	false and allow C to handle the conversion to bool. (Ilpo)
> ---
>  drivers/pci/pcie/dpc.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 64 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/dpc.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/dpc.c
> index 94111e438241..ba7240a2ba2f 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/dpc.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/dpc.c
> @@ -303,10 +303,74 @@ void dpc_process_error(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +static void pci_clear_surpdn_errors(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> +{
> +	u32 reg32;
> +
> +	if (pdev->dpc_rp_extensions) {
> +		pci_read_config_dword(pdev, pdev->dpc_cap + PCI_EXP_DPC_RP_PIO_STATUS,
> +				      &reg32);
> +		pci_write_config_dword(pdev, pdev->dpc_cap + PCI_EXP_DPC_RP_PIO_STATUS,
> +				       reg32);
> +	}
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * In practice, Surprise Down errors have been observed to also set
> +	 * error bits in the Status Register as well as the Fatal Error
> +	 * Detected bit in the Device Status Register.
> +	 */
> +	pci_write_config_word(pdev, PCI_STATUS, 0xffff);
> +
> +	pcie_capability_write_word(pdev, PCI_EXP_DEVSTA, PCI_EXP_DEVSTA_FED);
> +}
> +
> +static void dpc_handle_surprise_removal(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> +{
> +	if (!pcie_wait_for_link(pdev, false)) {
> +		pci_info(pdev, "Data Link Layer Link Active not cleared in 1000 msec\n");
> +		goto out;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (pdev->dpc_rp_extensions && dpc_wait_rp_inactive(pdev))
> +		goto out;
> +
> +	pci_aer_raw_clear_status(pdev);
> +	pci_clear_surpdn_errors(pdev);
> +
> +	pci_write_config_word(pdev, pdev->dpc_cap + PCI_EXP_DPC_STATUS,
> +			      PCI_EXP_DPC_STATUS_TRIGGER);
> +
> +out:
> +	clear_bit(PCI_DPC_RECOVERED, &pdev->priv_flags);
> +	wake_up_all(&dpc_completed_waitqueue);
> +}
> +
> +static bool dpc_is_surprise_removal(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> +{
> +	u16 status;
> +
> +	if (!pdev->is_hotplug_bridge)
> +		return false;
> +
> +	pci_read_config_word(pdev, pdev->aer_cap + PCI_ERR_UNCOR_STATUS,
> +			     &status);
> +
> +	return status & PCI_ERR_UNC_SURPDN;

Thanks for the update, looks more readable now.

While staring this now again, I think checking for error from
pci_read_config_word() would be useful so that it cannot confused with
surprise down?

-- 
 i.

> +}
> +
>  static irqreturn_t dpc_handler(int irq, void *context)
>  {
>  	struct pci_dev *pdev = context;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * According to PCIe r6.0 sec 6.7.6, errors are an expected side effect
> +	 * of async removal and should be ignored by software.
> +	 */
> +	if (dpc_is_surprise_removal(pdev)) {
> +		dpc_handle_surprise_removal(pdev);
> +		return IRQ_HANDLED;
> +	}
> +
>  	dpc_process_error(pdev);
>  
>  	/* We configure DPC so it only triggers on ERR_FATAL */
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2024-02-07 11:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-02-07 11:12 [PATCH v8] PCI/DPC: Ignore Surprise Down error on hot removal Smita Koralahalli
2024-02-07 11:35 ` Ilpo Järvinen [this message]
2024-02-07 17:12   ` Smita Koralahalli
2024-02-07 17:15 ` Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan

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=ef39439f-e9ba-848d-8fef-73b446db15e5@linux.intel.com \
    --to=ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@amd.com \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lukas@wunner.de \
    --cc=mahesh@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=yazen.ghannam@amd.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.