RE: [RFC PATCH 4/4] cxl/events: Updates for CXL Memory Module Event Record

Shiju Jose
2024-10-17T14:43:38Z

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@huawei.com>
>Sent: 17 October 2024 13:44
>To: Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@huawei.com>
>Cc: dave.jiang@intel.com; dan.j.williams@intel.com; alison.schofield@intel.com;
>vishal.l.verma@intel.com; ira.weiny@intel.com; dave@stgolabs.net; linux-
>cxl@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Linuxarm
><linuxarm@huawei.com>; tanxiaofei <tanxiaofei@huawei.com>; Zengtao (B)
><prime.zeng@hisilicon.com>
>Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] cxl/events: Updates for CXL Memory Module Event
>Record
>
>On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 17:33:49 +0100
><shiju.jose@huawei.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@huawei.com>
>>
>> CXL spec 3.1 section 8.2.9.2.1.3 Table 8-47, Memory Module Event
>> Record has updated with following new fields and new info for Device
>> Event Type and Device Health Information fields.
>> 1. Validity Flags
>> 2. Component Identifier
>> 3. Device Event Sub-Type
>>
>> Add updates for the above spec changes in the CXL events record and
>> CXL Memory Module trace event implementations.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@huawei.com>
>
>A few minor things inline, but with the event_sub_type naming feel free to add
>Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
>
>>
>> CXL_EVT_TP_printk("event_type='%s' health_status='%s'
>media_status='%s' " \
>> "as_life_used=%s as_dev_temp=%s as_cor_vol_err_cnt=%s " \
>> "as_cor_per_err_cnt=%s life_used=%u device_temp=%d " \
>> - "dirty_shutdown_cnt=%u cor_vol_err_cnt=%u
>cor_per_err_cnt=%u",
>> + "dirty_shutdown_cnt=%u cor_vol_err_cnt=%u
>cor_per_err_cnt=%u " \
>> + "validity_flags='%s' comp_id=%s sub_type='%s'",
>> show_dev_evt_type(__entry->event_type),
>> show_health_status_flags(__entry->health_status),
>> show_media_status(__entry->media_status),
>> @@ -750,7 +782,11 @@ TRACE_EVENT(cxl_memory_module,
>> show_one_bit_status(CXL_DHI_AS_COR_PER_ERR_CNT(__entry-
>>add_status)),
>> __entry->life_used, __entry->device_temp,
>> __entry->dirty_shutdown_cnt, __entry->cor_vol_err_cnt,
>> - __entry->cor_per_err_cnt
>> + __entry->cor_per_err_cnt,
>> + show_mem_module_valid_flags(__entry->validity_flags),
>> + cxl_print_component_id(__entry->validity_flags,
>CXL_MMER_VALID_COMPONENT,
>> +
>CXL_MMER_VALID_COMPONENT_ID_FORMAT, __entry->comp_id),
>> + show_dev_event_sub_type(__entry->sub_type)
>If we are going to reorganize for the other patches, why not move this next to
>the event type field? There isn't a validity flag for this (0 means not specified) so
>fine to move it earlier I think.
Will do.
>> )
>> );
>>
>> diff --git a/include/cxl/event.h b/include/cxl/event.h index
>> 7e98492c85df..18b7f96dea77 100644
>> --- a/include/cxl/event.h
>> +++ b/include/cxl/event.h
>> @@ -102,7 +102,10 @@ struct cxl_event_mem_module {
>> struct cxl_event_record_hdr hdr;
>> u8 event_type;
>> struct cxl_get_health_info info;
>> - u8 reserved[0x3d];
>> + u8 validity_flags[2];
>> + u8 component_id[CXL_EVENT_GEN_MED_COMP_ID_SIZE];
>> + u8 sub_type;
>maybe event_sub_type to match spec naming?
Will do.
>
>> + u8 reserved[0x2a];
>> } __packed;
>>
>> union cxl_event {

Thanks,
Shiju