From: "Li, Ming" <ming4.li@intel.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>, <rrichter@amd.com>,
<terry.bowman@amd.com>
Cc: <linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] Add support for root port RAS error handling
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 20:48:09 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9c4b275e-45cf-42ee-b356-d858a2fd3755@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <65f491b64f15a_aa2229497@dwillia2-mobl3.amr.corp.intel.com.notmuch>
On 3/16/2024 2:21 AM, Dan Williams wrote:
> Li, Ming wrote:
> [..]
>>> I do expect direct-attach to be a predominant use case, but I want to
>>> make sure that the implementation at least does not make the switch port
>>> error handling case more difficult to implement.
>>
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> Currently, A rough idea I have is that:
>> If a CXL switch connected to the CXL RP, there should be two cases,
>> 1. no CXL memory device connected to the switch, in this case, I'm not
>> sure whether CXL.cachemem protocol errors is still possibly happened
>> between RP and switch without CXL memory device. If not, maybe we
>> don't need to consider such case?
>
> Protocol errors can happen between any 2 ports, just like PCI protocol
> errors.
Seems like if we want to handle CXL protocol error for such case on CXL driver side, we need some changes for CXL switch port/dport enumeration, I remembered that switch USP and DSP are enumerated only when a CXL memory device attached.
>
>> 2. a CXL memory device connected to the switch. I think cxl_pci error
>> handler could also help to handle CXL.cachemem protocol errors
>> happened in switch USP/DSP.
>
> No, for 2 reasons:
>
> * The cxl_pci driver is only for general CXL type-3 memory
> expanders. Even though no CXL.cache devices have upstream drivers they
> do exist and they would experience protocol errors that the PCI core
> needs to consider.
>
> * When a switch is present it is possible to have a protocol error
> between the switch upstream port and the root port, and not between
> the switch downstream port and the endpoint.
>
> The more I think about it I do not think it is appropriate for cxl_pci
> to be involved in clearing root port errors in the VH case, it only
> works the RCH case because of the way the device and the root-port get
> combined.
Thank you for your explanation.
I think I need some time to consider a appropriate proposal. maybe we can register a CXL error handler into struct pci_driver during CXL port/dport enumeration for root port and switch cases, PCIe AER driver will invoke this registered CXL error handler to handle errors on CXL subsystem side. But I think this solution also meets above issue(current CXL subsystem won't enumerate CXL switch port/dport without CXL mem device).
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-20 12:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-13 8:35 [RFC PATCH 0/6] Add support for root port RAS error handling Li Ming
2024-03-13 8:35 ` [RFC PATCH 1/6] PCI/RCEC: Introduce pcie_walk_rcec_all() Li Ming
2024-03-25 20:15 ` Terry Bowman
2024-04-16 4:39 ` Dan Williams
2024-04-22 14:34 ` Terry Bowman
2024-04-22 23:03 ` Dan Williams
2024-04-23 2:33 ` Li, Ming
2024-04-16 7:23 ` Li, Ming
2024-03-13 8:35 ` [RFC PATCH 2/6] PCI/CXL: A new attribute to indicate CXL-capable host bridge Li Ming
2024-03-13 8:35 ` [RFC PATCH 3/6] PCI/AER: Enable RCEC to report internal error for CXL root port Li Ming
2024-03-25 19:42 ` Terry Bowman
2024-04-16 7:27 ` Li, Ming
2024-04-16 14:46 ` Terry Bowman
2024-04-18 5:53 ` Li, Ming
2024-04-18 14:57 ` Dan Williams
2024-04-22 2:06 ` Li, Ming
2024-04-22 23:01 ` Dan Williams
2024-03-13 8:36 ` [RFC PATCH 4/6] PCI/AER: Extend RCH RAS error handling to support VH topology case Li Ming
2024-03-15 2:30 ` Dan Williams
2024-03-15 3:43 ` Li, Ming
2024-03-15 4:05 ` Dan Williams
2024-03-15 5:08 ` Li, Ming
2024-03-25 19:14 ` Terry Bowman
2024-03-13 8:36 ` [RFC PATCH 5/6] cxl: Use __free() for cxl_pci/mem_find_port() to drop put_device() Li Ming
2024-03-15 2:24 ` Dan Williams
2024-03-15 4:05 ` Li, Ming
2024-03-13 8:36 ` [RFC PATCH 6/6] cxl/pci: Support to handle root port RAS errors captured by RCEC Li Ming
2024-03-15 1:45 ` [RFC PATCH 0/6] Add support for root port RAS error handling Dan Williams
2024-03-15 8:40 ` Li, Ming
2024-03-15 18:21 ` Dan Williams
2024-03-20 12:48 ` Li, Ming [this message]
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=9c4b275e-45cf-42ee-b356-d858a2fd3755@intel.com \
--to=ming4.li@intel.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rrichter@amd.com \
--cc=terry.bowman@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox