On Thu, 15 May 2025 16:52:15 -0500
"Bowman, Terry" <terry.bowman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 4/25/2025 8:18 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 09:17:45 -0500
> > "Bowman, Terry" <terry.bowman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/23/2025 10:04 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 20:47:05 -0500
> >>> Terry Bowman <terry.bowman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The AER service driver includes a CXL-specific kfifo, intended to forward
> >>>> CXL errors to the CXL driver. However, the forwarding functionality is
> >>>> currently unimplemented. Update the AER driver to enable error forwarding
> >>>> to the CXL driver.
> >>>>
> >>>> Modify the AER service driver's handle_error_source(), which is called from
> >>>> process_aer_err_devices(), to distinguish between PCIe and CXL errors.
> >>>>
> >>>> Rename and update is_internal_error() to is_cxl_error(). Ensuring it
> >>>> checks both the 'struct aer_info::is_cxl' flag and the AER internal error
> >>>> masks.
> >>>>
> >>>> If the error is a standard PCIe error then continue calling pcie_aer_handle_error()
> >>>> as done in the current AER driver.
> >>>>
> >>>> If the error is a CXL-related error then forward it to the CXL driver for
> >>>> handling using the kfifo mechanism.
> >>>>
> >>>> Introduce a new function forward_cxl_error(), which constructs a CXL
> >>>> protocol error context using cxl_create_prot_err_info(). This context is
> >>>> then passed to the CXL driver via kfifo using a 'struct work_struct'.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Terry Bowman <terry.bowman@xxxxxxx>
> >>> Hi Terry,
> >>>
> >>> Finally got back to this. I'm not following how some of the reference
> >>> counting in here is working. It might be fine but there is a lot
> >>> taking then dropping device references - some of which are taken again later.
> >>>
> >>>> @@ -1082,10 +1094,44 @@ static void cxl_rch_enable_rcec(struct pci_dev *rcec)
> >>>> pci_info(rcec, "CXL: Internal errors unmasked");
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> +static void forward_cxl_error(struct pci_dev *_pdev, struct aer_err_info *info)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + int severity = info->severity;
> >>> So far this variable isn't really justified. Maybe it makes sense later in the
> >>> series?
> >> This is used below in call to cxl_create_prot_err_info().
> > Sure, but why not just do
> >
> > if (cxl_create_prot_error_info(pdev, info->severity, &wd.err_info)) {
> >
> > There isn't anything modifying info->severity in between so that local
> > variable is just padding out the code to no real benefit.
> >
> >
> >>>> + pci_err(pdev, "Failed to create CXL protocol error information");
> >>>> + return;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> +
> >>>> + struct device *cxl_dev __free(put_device) = get_device(err_info->dev);
> >>> Also this one. A reference was acquired and dropped in cxl_create_prot_err_info()
> >>> followed by retaking it here. How do we know it is still about by this call
> >>> and once we pull it off the kfifo later?
> >> Yes, this is a problem I realized after sending the series.
> >>
> >> The device reference incr could be changed for all the devices to the non-cleanup
> >> variety. Then would add the reference incr in the caller after calling cxl_create_prot_err_info().
> >> I need to look at the other calls to to cxl_create_prot_err_info() as well.
> >>
> >> In addition, I think we should consider adding the CXL RAS status into the struct cxl_prot_err_info.
> >> This would eliminate the need for further accesses to the CXL device after being dequeued from the
> >> fifo. Thoughts?
> > That sounds like a reasonable solution to me.
> >
> > Jonathan
> Hi Jonathan,
Hi Terry,
Sorry for delay - travel etc...
>
> Is it sufficient to rely on correctly implemented reference counting implementation instead
> of caching the RAS status I mentioned earlier?
>
> I have the next revision coded to 'get' the CXL erring device's reference count in the AER
> driver before enqueuing in the kfifo and then added a reference count 'put' in the CXL driver
> after dequeuing and handling/logging. This is an alternative to what I mentioned earlier reading
> the RAS status and caching it. One more question: is it OK to implement the get and put (of
> the same object) in different drivers?
It's definitely unusual. If there is anything similar to point at I'd be happier than
this 'innovation' showing up here first.
>
> If we need to read and cache the RAS status before the kfifo enqueue there will be some other
> details to work through.
This still smells like the cleaner solution to me, but depends on those details..
Jonathan
>
> -Terry
>
>
