Re: [PATCH v5] ACPI: Move sdei_init and ghes_init ahead to handle platform errors earlier

Rafael J. Wysocki
2022-01-20T16:26:06Z

On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 9:43 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 02:40:11PM +0800, Shuai Xue wrote:
> > [+to Rafael, question about HEST/GHES/SDEI init]
> >
> > Hi, Bjorn,
> >
> > Thank you for your comments and quick reply.
> >
> > 在 2022/1/19 AM6:49, Bjorn Helgaas 写道:
> > > On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 04:43:10PM +0800, Shuai Xue wrote:
> > >> On an ACPI system, ACPI is initialised very early from a
> > >> subsys_initcall(), while SDEI is not ready until a
> > >> subsys_initcall_sync(). This patch is to reduce the time before GHES
> > >> initialization.
> > >>
> > >> The SDEI driver provides functions (e.g. apei_sdei_register_ghes(),
> > >> apei_sdei_unregister_ghes()) to register or unregister event callback
> > >> for dispatcher in firmware. When the GHES driver probing, it registers
> > >> the corresponding callback according to the notification type specified
> > >> by GHES. If the GHES notification type is SDEI, the GHES driver will
> > >> call apei_sdei_register_ghes() to register event call.
> > >>
> > >> When the firmware emits an event, it migrates the handling of the event
> > >> into the kernel at the registered entry-point __sdei_asm_handler. And
> > >> finally, the kernel will call the registered event callback and return
> > >> status_code to indicate the status of event handling. SDEI_EV_FAILED
> > >> indicates that the kernel failed to handle the event.
> > >>
> > >> Consequently, when an error occurs during kernel booting, the kernel is
> > >> unable to handle and report errors until the GHES driver is initialized
> > >> by device_initcall(), in which the event callback is registered. For
> > >> example, when the kernel booting, the console logs many times from
> > >> firmware before GHES drivers init in our platform:
> > >>
> > >> Trip in MM PCIe RAS handle(Intr:910)
> > >> Clean PE[1.1.1] ERR_STS:0x4000100 -> 0 INT_STS:F0000000
> > >> Find RP(98:1.0)
> > >> --Walk dev(98:1.0) CE:0 UCE:4000
> > >> ...
> > >> ERROR: sdei_dispatch_event(32a) ret:-1
> > >> --handler(910) end
> > >
> > > If I understand correctly, the firmware noticed an error, tried to
> > > report it to the kernel, and is complaining because the kernel isn't
> > > ready to handle it yet. And the reason for this patch is to reduce
> > > these complaints from the firmware.
> >
> > My thoughts exactly :)
> >
> > > That doesn't seem like a very good reason for this patch. There is
> > > *always* a window before the kernel is ready to handle events from the
> > > firmware.
> >
> > Yes, there is always a window. But if we could do better in kernel that
> > reduces the window by 90% (from 33 seconds to 3 second), why not?
> >
> > > Why is the firmware noticing these errors in the first place? If
> > > you're seeing these complaints regularly, my guess is that either you
> > > have some terrible hardware or (more likely) the firmware isn't
> > > clearing some expected error condition correctly. For example, maybe
> > > the Unsupported Request errors that happen while enumerating PCIe
> > > devices are being reported.
> > >
> > > If you register the callback function, the kernel will now start
> > > seeing these error reports. What happens then? Does the kernel log
> > > the errors somewhere? Is that better than the current situation where
> > > the firmware logs them?
> >
> > Yep, it is a hardware issue. The firmware only logs in console
> > (ttyAMA0) and we can not see it in kernel side. After the kernel
> > starts seeing these error reports, we could see EDAC/ghes and
> > efi/cper detailed logs in dmesg. We did not notice the problem until
> > we check the console log, which inspired us to reduce the window
> > when kernel startup, so that we can see the message clearly and
> > properly. I think the intuition is to check the log of dmesg, not
> > the console.
>
> > > However, I DO think that:
> > >
> > > - Removing acpi_hest_init() from acpi_pci_root_init(), and
> > >
> > > - Converting ghes_init() and sdei_init() from initcalls to explicit
> > > calls
> > >
> > > are very good reasons to do something like this patch because HEST is
> > > not PCI-specific, and IMO, explicit calls are better than initcalls
> > > because initcall ordering is implicit and not well-defined within a
> > > level.
> >
> > Haha, if the above reasons still don't convince you, I would like to
> > accept yours :) Should we do it in one patch or separate it into two
> > patches?
>
> IMO, this can be done in one patch, but this would probably go via
> Rafael.

Yes, that would make sense IMO.