Message-ID: <20180412140648.GD145698@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Apr 2018 09:06:49 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To:     Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Oza Pawandeep <poza@...eaurora.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Dongdong Liu <liudongdong3@...wei.com>,
        Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>, Wei Zhang <wzhang@...com>,
        Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 6/6] PCI/DPC: Do not do recovery for hotplug enabled
 system

[+cc Alex because of his interest in device reset]

For context, here's the part of the patch we're discussing:

> >>  static void dpc_work(struct work_struct *work)
> >>  {
> >>         struct dpc_dev *dpc = container_of(work, struct dpc_dev, work);
> >>         struct pci_dev *pdev = dpc->dev->port;
> >> 
> >>         /* From DPC point of view error is always FATAL. */
> >> -       pcie_do_recovery(pdev, DPC_FATAL);
> >> +       if (!pdev->is_hotplug_bridge)
> >> +               pcie_do_recovery(pdev, DPC_FATAL);
> >> +       else
> >> +               dpc_reset_link_remove_dev(pdev);
> >>  }

This is at the point where DPC has been triggered in the hardware and
the DPC driver is starting recovery, and I'm wondering why we need to
handle the "!pdev->is_hotplug_bridge" case differently.

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 09:41:56PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 4/10/2018 5:03 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >> DPC and AER should attempt recovery in the same way, except the
> >> cases where system is with hotplug enabled.
> > What's the connection with hotplug?  I see from the patch that for
> > hotplug bridges you remove the tree below the bridge, and otherwise
> > you just reset the secondary link (I think).
> > 
> > The changelog should explain why we need the difference.
> > 
> > I'm a little skeptical to begin with, because I'm not sure why we
> > should handle a DPC event differently just because a bridge has the
> > *capability* of hotplug.  Even if a hotplug bridge reports a DPC
> > event, that doesn't necessarily mean a hotplug has occurred.
> 
> Let's do a recap on what we have discussed about this until now.
> 
> There are two conflicting error recovery mechanisms for PCIe. 
> 
> If a system supports both hotplug and DPC, endpoint can be removed
> and inserted safely.  DPC driver shuts down the driver on link down.
> When link comes back up, hotplug driver takes over and initiates an
> enumeration process.  Keith mentioned the stop and re-enumerate
> design was chosen because someone could remove a drive and insert an
> unrelated drive back to the system.  We can't really save and
> restore state as we do in the AER path. 
> 
> Now, let's assume a system without hotplug capability.  Second
> mechanism is to go through DPC/AER path and do an automatic link
> down recovery via DPC retrain/secondary bus reset including register
> save and restore.  Second mechanism is more suitable for handling
> "surprise link down" event. The goal is to retrain the link and
> continue driver operation. 
> 
> The goal of this patch to separate these two cases from each other
> as the DPC driver needs to work on both contexts. Current DPC code
> doesn't handle the second use case.

I think the scenario you are describing is two systems that are
identical except that in the first, the endpoint is below a hotplug
bridge, while in the second, it's below a non-hotplug bridge.  There's
no physical hotplug (no drive removed or inserted), and DPC is
triggered in both systems.

I suggest that DPC should be handled identically in both systems:

  - The PCI core should have the same view of the endpoint: it should
    be removed and re-added in both cases (or in neither case).

  - The endpoint itself should not be able to tell the difference: it
    should see a link down event, followed by a link retrain, followed
    by the same sequence of config accesses, etc.

  - The endpoint driver should not be able to tell the difference,
    i.e., we should be calling the same pci_error_handlers callbacks
    in both cases.

It's true that in the non-hotplug system, pciehp probably won't start
re-enumeration, so we might need an alternate path to trigger that.

But that's not what we're doing in this patch.  In this patch we're
adding a much bigger difference: for hotplug bridges, we stop and
remove the hierarchy below the bridge; for non-hotplug bridges, we do
the AER-style flow of calling pci_error_handlers callbacks.

Bjorn

Powered by blists - more mailing lists