Re: [PATCH V8 03/10] PCI: Create PCI library functions in support of DOE mailboxes.

Jonathan Cameron
2022-06-06T14:47:01Z

On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 10:16:15 -0700
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 09:18:08AM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 07:59:21PM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 11:33:50AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 30 May 2022 21:06:57 +0200 Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 01:32:30PM -0700, ira.weiny@intel.com wrote:
> > > > > > + /* First 2 dwords have already been read */
> > > > > > + length -= 2;
> > > > > > + /* Read the rest of the response payload */
> > > > > > + for (i = 0; i < min(length, task->response_pl_sz / sizeof(u32)); i++) {
> > > > > > + pci_read_config_dword(pdev, offset + PCI_DOE_READ,
> > > > > > + &task->response_pl[i]);
> > > > > > + pci_write_config_dword(pdev, offset + PCI_DOE_READ, 0);
> > > > > > + }
> > > > >
> > > > > You need to check the Data Object Ready bit. The device may clear the
> > > > > bit prematurely (e.g. as a result of a concurrent FLR or Conventional
> > > > > Reset). You'll continue reading zero dwords from the mailbox and
> > > > > pretend success to the caller even though the response is truncated.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you're concerned about performance when checking the bit on every
> > > > > loop iteration, checking it only on the last but one iteration should
> > > > > be sufficient to detect truncation.
> > > >
> > > > Good catch - I hate corner cases. Thankfully this one is trivial to
> > > > check for.
> > >
> > > Ok looking at the spec: Strictly speaking this needs to happen multiple
> > > times both in doe_statemachine_work() and inside pci_doe_recv_resp();
> > > not just in this loop. :-(
> > >
> > > This is because, the check in doe_statemachine_work() only covers the
> > > 1st dword read IIUC.
> >
> > The spec says "this bit indicates the DOE instance has a *data object*
> > available to be read by system firmware/software".
>
> Ok yea. I got confused by step 6 in sec 6.30.2.
>
> >
> > So, the entire object is available for reading, not just one dword.
>
> Yes cool!
>
> >
> > You've already got checks in place for the first two dwords which
> > cover reading an "all zeroes" response. No need to amend them.
> >
> > You only need to re-check the Data Object Ready bit on the last-but-one
> > dword in case the function was reset concurrently. Per sec. 6.30.2,
> > "An FLR to a Function must result in the aborting of any DOE transfer
> > in progress."
>
> I think I disagree. Even if we do that and an FLR comes before the last read
> the last read could be 0's.
>
> I think the interpretation of the data needs to happen above this and if an FLR
> happens during this read we are going to have other issues.
>
> But I can add the check if you feel strongly about it.
>
> >
> >
> > > > > > +static irqreturn_t pci_doe_irq_handler(int irq, void *data)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > + struct pci_doe_mb *doe_mb = data;
> > > > > > + struct pci_dev *pdev = doe_mb->pdev;
> > > > > > + int offset = doe_mb->cap_offset;
> > > > > > + u32 val;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + pci_read_config_dword(pdev, offset + PCI_DOE_STATUS, &val);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + /* Leave the error case to be handled outside IRQ */
> > > > > > + if (FIELD_GET(PCI_DOE_STATUS_ERROR, val)) {
> > > > > > + mod_delayed_work(system_wq, &doe_mb->statemachine, 0);
> > > > > > + return IRQ_HANDLED;
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + if (FIELD_GET(PCI_DOE_STATUS_INT_STATUS, val)) {
> > > > > > + pci_write_config_dword(pdev, offset + PCI_DOE_STATUS,
> > > > > > + PCI_DOE_STATUS_INT_STATUS);
> > > > > > + mod_delayed_work(system_wq, &doe_mb->statemachine, 0);
> > > > > > + return IRQ_HANDLED;
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + return IRQ_NONE;
> > > > > > +}
> > > > >
> > > > > PCIe 6.0, table 7-316 says that an interrupt is also raised when
> > > > > "the DOE Busy bit has been Cleared", yet such an interrupt is
> > > > > not handled here. It is incorrectly treated as a spurious
> > > > > interrupt by returning IRQ_NONE. The right thing to do
> > > > > is probably to wake the state machine in case it's polling
> > > > > for the Busy flag to clear.
> > > >
> > > > Ah. I remember testing this via a lot of hacking on the QEMU code
> > > > to inject the various races that can occur (it was really ugly to do).
> > > >
> > > > Guess we lost the handling at some point. I think your fix
> > > > is the right one.
> > >
> > > Perhaps I am missing something but digging into this more. I disagree
> > > that the handler fails to handle this case. If I read the spec correctly
> > > DOE Interrupt Status must be set when an interrupt is generated.
> > > The handler wakes the state machine in that case. The state machine
> > > then checks for busy if there is work to be done.
> >
> > Right, I was mistaken, sorry for the noise.
>
> NP I'm not always following this either.
>
> >
> >
> > > Normally we would not even need to check for status error. But that is
> > > special cased because clearing that status is left to the state machine.
> >
> > That however looks wrong because the DOE Interrupt Status bit is never
> > cleared after a DOE Error is signaled. The state machine performs an
> > explicit abort upon an error by setting the DOE Abort bit, but that
> > doesn't seem to clear DOE Interrupt Status:
> >
> > Per section 6.30.2, "At any time, the system firmware/software is
> > permitted to set the DOE Abort bit in the DOE Control Register,
> > and the DOE instance must Clear the Data Object Ready bit,
> > if not already Clear, and Clear the DOE Error bit, if already Set,
> > in the DOE Status Register, within 1 second."
>
> I thought that meant the hardware (the DOE instance) must clear those bits
> within 1 second?
>
> >
> > No mention of the DOE Interrupt Status bit, so we cannot assume that
> > it's cleared by a DOE Abort and we must clear it explicitly.
>
> Oh... yea. Jonathan? We discussed this before and I was convinced it worked
> but I think Lukas is correct here.

Hmm. I thought we were good as well, but Lukas is correct in saying
the interrupt status bit isn't cleared (which is 'novel' give the associated
bit to tell you what the interrupt means will be cleared).

I'm not sure I want to think around the race conditions that result...

>
> Should we drop the special case in pci_doe_irq_handler() and just clear the
> status always? Or should we wait and clear it is pci_doe_abort_start?

I don't think it matters. pci_doe_irq_handler() seems a little cleaner.

I've not figured out completely if there are races however...

It is set when no already set and we get transitions of any of the following:
- DOE error bit set (this can't happen until abort so no race here)

- Data Object Ready bit is set: Can this happen with the DOE error set? I don't
immediately see language saying it can't. However, I don't think it can
for any of the challenge response protocols yet defined (and there are other
problems if anyone wants to implement unsolicited messages)

- DOE busy bit has cleared - can definitely happen after an abort (which is
fine as nothing to do anyway, so we'll handle a pointless interrupt).
Could it in theory happen when error is set? I think not but only because
of the statement "Clear this bit when it is able to receive a new data
object."

So I think we are fine doing it preabort, but wouldn't put it past a hardware
designer to find some path through that which results in a bonus interrupt
and potentially us resetting twice.

If we clear it at the end of abort instead, what happens?
Definitely no interrupts until we clear it. As we are doing query response
protocols only, no new data until state machine moves on, so fine there.

So what about just doing it unconditionally..

+ case DOE_WAIT_ABORT:
+ case DOE_WAIT_ABORT_ON_ERR:
+ pci_read_config_dword(pdev, offset + PCI_DOE_STATUS, &val);
+
+ if (!FIELD_GET(PCI_DOE_STATUS_ERROR, val) &&
+ !FIELD_GET(PCI_DOE_STATUS_BUSY, val)) {

here...

+ /* Back to normal state - carry on */
+ retire_cur_task(doe_mb);

This feels a little bit more 'standard' as we are allowing new interrupts
only after everything is back to a nice state.

>
> Ira
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Lukas