From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2958185D; Thu, 18 Jan 2024 00:52:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.55.52.93 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1705539142; cv=none; b=tahq2OIT2b4znSUfnoDwijYLxT+pRzuq/KB/HdpexjkF+WeYMJZxaEsaH5GfGgl6S08ZcuQt2+SUVekPLD0R4D+v+ZdhkHDpNULkUSFW0sMI+sPZHiGtyqjumrzvMwL2kGRjmVCJPNNNsJgU98PPUMa/6dsw8urXNdHBKzDv3RE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1705539142; c=relaxed/simple; bh=FirjylFd2MCTFO58V4vn7pDh9CrJrYnIJwrr78O9IR8=; h=DKIM-Signature:X-IronPort-AV:X-IronPort-AV:Received:X-ExtLoop1: X-IronPort-AV:Received:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:User-Agent:Cc: Subject:Content-Language:To:References:From:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=cgt/Htnb2p+g/MftM7jDS7Nxt43fMFatNwQXmjCh04bH70g+k1dxajif33HRZ2+1kmpitEALr2VfzhsVpciMinqUJjm8uuZ9yrPKOfozhT9No8qQx9FQGoXzXjYAPi1bZ455zoy2ExD05eroWUVGVSNvVtwkh0oud4H++P6wDn4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=U17CO2b+; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.55.52.93 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="U17CO2b+" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1705539141; x=1737075141; h=message-id:date:mime-version:cc:subject:to:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FirjylFd2MCTFO58V4vn7pDh9CrJrYnIJwrr78O9IR8=; b=U17CO2b+PAZoZLRfRXr5ILSxGFwyOyAj2MFpqs1MvTBVQsFoAvGFP+Yu kYYuKXXsDB1h7txbiOU3zAQRZJj5QO07hV9S9sjsLom5KORJXUh3+GspM nfNcKJMAYK581U7/008Ou7/VLyrWJ/5HlLjITjeKUv7boIaZe0vseh4Mw bI5Jl/5mPqnUur8Rzhfd5v3dzM62l5uvgjavOj3m1yYepG3y17hvVR89S e1YXexN/6yatSE0nV4Uy0x5ROymB+3DrpDTUCII3m0MUm/TScAt7xfV/C +6pMdiYgfCYZ38dx/tOdtJD11B7/Xe6wvyyDbGalBK7myMbtqwl/8M53y A==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10956"; a="397467481" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.05,201,1701158400"; d="scan'208";a="397467481" Received: from orviesa003.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.143]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Jan 2024 16:52:20 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.05,201,1701158400"; d="scan'208";a="186466" Received: from allen-box.sh.intel.com (HELO [10.239.159.127]) ([10.239.159.127]) by orviesa003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 17 Jan 2024 16:52:17 -0800 Message-ID: <5a9c38ec-1dc2-40d3-99eb-02b87be660a6@linux.intel.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 08:46:50 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cc: baolu.lu@linux.intel.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v10 0/5] fix vt-d hard lockup when hotplug ATS capable device Content-Language: en-US To: Ethan Zhao , kevin.tian@intel.com, bhelgaas@google.com, dwmw2@infradead.org, will@kernel.org, robin.murphy@arm.com, lukas@wunner.de References: <20231228170206.720675-1-haifeng.zhao@linux.intel.com> <1a2a4069-c737-4a3c-a2f6-cce06823331b@linux.intel.com> <3ee904e9-8a93-4bd9-8df7-6294885589e4@linux.intel.com> <42f7848a-0262-4871-b5dc-0e87beebfd11@linux.intel.com> From: Baolu Lu In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 1/17/24 5:00 PM, Ethan Zhao wrote: > +       /* > +        * If the ATS invalidation target device is gone this moment > (surprise > +        * removed, died, no response) don't try this request again. this > +        * request will not get valid result anymore. but the request was > +        * already submitted to hardware and we predict to get a ITE in > +        * followed batch of request, if so, it will get handled then. > +        */ > +       if (target_pdev && !pci_device_is_present(target_pdev)) > +               return -EINVAL; Again, we should not ignore the error triggered by the current request. Do not leave it to the next one. The WAIT descriptor is a fence. Handle everything within its boundary. Best regards, baolu