Re: [PATCH v4 07/15] PCI/AER: Add CXL PCIe Port Uncorrectable Error recovery in AER service driver

Bowman, Terry
2024-12-13T15:07:26Z

On 12/12/2024 3:28 AM, Alejandro Lucero Palau wrote:
> On 12/11/24 23:39, Terry Bowman wrote:
>> Existing recovery procedure for PCIe Uncorrectable Errors (UCE) does not
>> apply to CXL devices. Recovery can not be used for CXL devices because of
>> potential corruption on what can be system memory. Also, current PCIe UCE
>> recovery, in the case of a Root Port (RP) or Downstream Switch Port (DSP),
>> does not begin at the RP/DSP but begins at the first downstream device.
>> This will miss handling CXL Protocol Errors in a CXL RP or DSP. A separate
>> CXL recovery is needed because of the different handling requirements
>>
>> Add a new function, cxl_do_recovery() using the following.
>>
>> Add cxl_walk_bridge() to iterate the detected error's sub-topology.
>> cxl_walk_bridge() is similar to pci_walk_bridge() but the CXL flavor
>> will begin iteration at the RP or DSP rather than beginning at the
>> first downstream device.
>>
>> Add cxl_report_error_detected() as an analog to report_error_detected().
>> It will call pci_driver::cxl_err_handlers for each iterated downstream
>> device. The pci_driver::cxl_err_handler's UCE handler returns a boolean
>> indicating if there was a UCE error detected during handling.
>>
>> cxl_do_recovery() uses the status from cxl_report_error_detected() to
>> determine how to proceed. Non-fatal CXL UCE errors will be treated as
>> fatal. If a UCE was present during handling then cxl_do_recovery()
>> will kernel panic.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Terry Bowman <terry.bowman@amd.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/pci/pci.h | 3 +++
>> drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c | 4 ++++
>> drivers/pci/pcie/err.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 3 files changed, 61 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.h b/drivers/pci/pci.h
>> index 14d00ce45bfa..5a67e41919d8 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/pci.h
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.h
>> @@ -658,6 +658,9 @@ pci_ers_result_t pcie_do_recovery(struct pci_dev *dev,
>> pci_channel_state_t state,
>> pci_ers_result_t (*reset_subordinates)(struct pci_dev *pdev));
>>
>> +/* CXL error reporting and handling */
>> +void cxl_do_recovery(struct pci_dev *dev);
>> +
>> bool pcie_wait_for_link(struct pci_dev *pdev, bool active);
>> int pcie_retrain_link(struct pci_dev *pdev, bool use_lt);
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c
>> index c1eb939c1cca..861521872318 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c
>> @@ -1024,6 +1024,8 @@ static int cxl_rch_handle_error_iter(struct pci_dev *dev, void *data)
>> err_handler->error_detected(dev, pci_channel_io_normal);
>> else if (info->severity == AER_FATAL)
>> err_handler->error_detected(dev, pci_channel_io_frozen);
>> +
>> + cxl_do_recovery(dev);
>> }
>> out:
>> device_unlock(&dev->dev);
>> @@ -1048,6 +1050,8 @@ static void cxl_handle_error(struct pci_dev *dev, struct aer_err_info *info)
>> pdrv->cxl_err_handler->cor_error_detected(dev);
>>
>> pcie_clear_device_status(dev);
>> + } else {
>> + cxl_do_recovery(dev);
>> }
>> }
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/err.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/err.c
>> index 31090770fffc..6f7cf5e0087f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/err.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/err.c
>> @@ -276,3 +276,57 @@ pci_ers_result_t pcie_do_recovery(struct pci_dev *dev,
>>
>> return status;
>> }
>> +
>> +static void cxl_walk_bridge(struct pci_dev *bridge,
>> + int (*cb)(struct pci_dev *, void *),
>> + void *userdata)
>> +{
>> + bool *status = userdata;
>> +
>> + cb(bridge, status);
>> + if (bridge->subordinate && !*status)
>
> I would prefer to use not a pointer for status as you are not changing
> what it points to here, so first a cast then using just !status in the
> conditional.
>

Hi Alejandro,

I agree. This can be significantly improved. I'll remove the condition on
'status' and instead introduce condition on cb() and pci_walk_bus() return value.
But, 'status' does need to be a pointer so the caller (cxl_do_recovery()) can
determine if to invoke panic.

>> + pci_walk_bus(bridge->subordinate, cb, status);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int cxl_report_error_detected(struct pci_dev *dev, void *data)
>> +{
>> + struct pci_driver *pdrv = dev->driver;
>> + bool *status = data;
>> +
>> + device_lock(&dev->dev);
>> + if (pdrv && pdrv->cxl_err_handler &&
>> + pdrv->cxl_err_handler->error_detected) {
>> + const struct cxl_error_handlers *cxl_err_handler =
>> + pdrv->cxl_err_handler;
>> + *status |= cxl_err_handler->error_detected(dev);
>
> This implies status should not be a bool pointer as different bits can
> be set by the returning value, but as the code seems to only care about
> any bit implying an error and therefore error detected, I guess that is
> fine. However, the next function calling this one is using an int ...
>
>
> Confusing to me. I would expect here not an OR but returning just when a
> first error is detected, handling the lock properly, with the walk
> function behind the scenes breaking the walk if the return is anything
> other than zero.

The cxl_err_handler->error_detected() return value is a bool. But, The bitwise OR is not necessary. I'll refactor as part of mentioned above.

Thanks for the feedback.

-Terry

>
>
>> + }
>> + device_unlock(&dev->dev);
>> + return *status;
>> +}
>> +
>> +void cxl_do_recovery(struct pci_dev *dev)
>> +{
>> + struct pci_host_bridge *host = pci_find_host_bridge(dev->bus);
>> + int type = pci_pcie_type(dev);
>> + struct pci_dev *bridge;
>> + int status;
>> +
>> + if (type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT ||
>> + type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_DOWNSTREAM ||
>> + type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_UPSTREAM ||
>> + type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_ENDPOINT)
>> + bridge = dev;
>> + else
>> + bridge = pci_upstream_bridge(dev);
>> +
>> + cxl_walk_bridge(bridge, cxl_report_error_detected, &status);
>> + if (status)
>> + panic("CXL cachemem error.");
>> +
>> + if (host->native_aer || pcie_ports_native) {
>> + pcie_clear_device_status(dev);
>> + pci_aer_clear_nonfatal_status(dev);
>> + }
>> +
>> + pci_info(bridge, "CXL uncorrectable error.\n");
>> +}