[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c236b732-ed65-9f94-7ae5-b1203dff2eb0@codeaurora.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 10:46:04 -0400
From: Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
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>,
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
On 4/15/2018 11:17 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> It doesn't seem right to me that we handle both ERR_NONFATAL and
> ERR_FATAL events differently if we happen to have DPC support in a
> switch.
>
> Maybe we should consider triggering DPC only on ERR_FATAL? That would
> keep DPC out of the ERR_NONFATAL cases.
>
>From reliability perspective, it makes sense. DPC handles NONFATAL errors
by bringing down the link. If error happened behind a switch and root port
is handling DPC, we are impacting a lot of devices operation because of one
faulty device.
Keith, do you have any preference on this direction?
> For ERR_FATAL, maybe we should bite the bullet and use
> remove/re-enumerate for AER as well as for DPC. That would be painful
> for higher-level software, but if we're willing to accept that pain
> for new systems that support DPC, maybe life would be better overall
> if it worked the same way on systems without DPC?
Sure, we can go to this route as well.
--
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists