Message-ID: <CAD=Nsqy-JOdcYXiWYkJ+zw_e5Ox0ur0XGnNLrBg6R-Tihna2rA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 Oct 2023 11:32:48 +0200
From:   Kornel Dulęba <korneld@...omium.org>
To:     Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Asutosh Das <quic_asutoshd@...cinc.com>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Radoslaw Biernacki <biernacki@...gle.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
        Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@...omium.org>, upstream@...ihalf.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: cqhci: Be more verbose in error irq handler

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 10:52 AM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On 26/10/23 11:29, Kornel Dulęba wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 10:14 AM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 26/10/23 10:56, Kornel Dulęba wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 8:25 AM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 25/10/23 11:01, Kornel Dulęba wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 1:38 PM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 20/10/23 11:53, Kornel Dulęba wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 9:41 AM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 16/10/23 12:56, Kornel Dulęba wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> There are several reasons for controller to generate an error interrupt.
> >>>>>>>>> They include controller<->card timeout, and CRC mismatch error.
> >>>>>>>>> Right now we only get one line in the logs stating that CQE recovery was
> >>>>>>>>> triggered, but with no information about what caused it.
> >>>>>>>>> To figure out what happened be more verbose and dump the registers from
> >>>>>>>>> irq error handler logic.
> >>>>>>>>> This matches the behaviour of the software timeout logic, see
> >>>>>>>>> cqhci_timeout.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kornel Dulęba <korneld@...omium.org>
> >>>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>>  drivers/mmc/host/cqhci-core.c | 5 +++--
> >>>>>>>>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/cqhci-core.c b/drivers/mmc/host/cqhci-core.c
> >>>>>>>>> index b3d7d6d8d654..33abb4bd53b5 100644
> >>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/cqhci-core.c
> >>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/cqhci-core.c
> >>>>>>>>> @@ -700,8 +700,9 @@ static void cqhci_error_irq(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 status, int cmd_error,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>       terri = cqhci_readl(cq_host, CQHCI_TERRI);
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -     pr_debug("%s: cqhci: error IRQ status: 0x%08x cmd error %d data error %d TERRI: 0x%08x\n",
> >>>>>>>>> -              mmc_hostname(mmc), status, cmd_error, data_error, terri);
> >>>>>>>>> +     pr_warn("%s: cqhci: error IRQ status: 0x%08x cmd error %d data error %d\n",
> >>>>>>>>> +              mmc_hostname(mmc), status, cmd_error, data_error);
> >>>>>>>>> +     cqhci_dumpregs(cq_host);
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> For debugging, isn't dynamic debug seems more appropriate?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dynamic debug is an option, but my personal preference would be to
> >>>>>>> just log more info in the error handler.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Interrupt handlers can get called very rapidly, so some kind of rate
> >>>>>> limiting should be used if the message is unconditional.  Also you need
> >>>>>> to provide actual reasons for your preference.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For dynamic debug of the register dump, something like below is
> >>>>>> possible.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> #define cqhci_dynamic_dumpregs(cqhost) \
> >>>>>>         _dynamic_func_call_no_desc("cqhci_dynamic_dumpregs", cqhci_dumpregs, cqhost)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Fair point.
> >>>>> The reason I'm not a fan of using dynamic debug for this is that my
> >>>>> goal here is to improve the warning/error logging information that we
> >>>>> get from systems running in production.
> >>>>> I.e. if we get a lot of "running CQE recovery" messages, at the very
> >>>>> least I'd like to know what is causing them.
> >>>>
> >>>> So you are saying you want to collect debug information from production
> >>>> systems, but don't want to use dynamic debug to do it?
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> To give you some background.
> >>>>>>> We're seeing some "running CQE recovery" lines in the logs, followed
> >>>>>>> by a dm_verity mismatch error.
> >>>>>>> The reports come from the field, with no feasible way to reproduce the
> >>>>>>> issue locally.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If it is a software error, some kind of error injection may well
> >>>>>> reproduce it.  Also if it is a hardware error that only happens
> >>>>>> during recovery, error injection could increase the likelihood of
> >>>>>> reproducing it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We tried software injection and it didn't yield any results.
> >>>>> We're currently looking into "injecting" hw errors by using a small
> >>>>> burst field generator to interfere with transfers on the data line
> >>>>> directly.
> >>>>
> >>>> I just tried instrumenting a driver to inject CRC errors and it
> >>>> revealed several CQE recovery issues, including spurious TCN for
> >>>> tag 31.  I will send some patches when they are ready.
> >>>
> >>> Sorry, what I meant by it didn't yield results is that Ii didn't
> >>> trigger the dm-verity error that we're seeing on production.
> >>> With SW injection there are two potential issues that come to my mind:
> >>>
> >>> 1. In the cqhci_error_irq when TERRI is not valid only a single,
> >>> "random" task is marked as bad.
> >>> Then in cqhci_recover_mrq we're marking all pending requests as done.
> >>> For data transfers this is somewhat bening as it will return with
> >>> bytes_xfered=0.
> >>> IIUC this will then cause the upper layer to re-enqueue this request.
> >>
> >> Yes
> >>
> >>> The bigger problem is a CMD only mrq, which will be mistakenly marked
> >>> as completed successfully.
> >>
> >> I noticed that also.  Notably the only non-data CMD is cache flush.
> >>
> >> There are several other issues, but patches will describe
> >> them better.
> >
> > Sure. :)
> >
> > jfyi, I've just managed to inject CRC errors by using a burst field generator.
> > (Langer P23 if you're interested.)
> > I'm using it by touching the D0 MMC line directly, and it yields
> > surprisingly good results.
> > I've changed the spurious TCN WARN_ONCE to pr_warn and got the following:
> >
> > [   71.885698] mmc1: cqhci: error IRQ status: 0x00000000 cmd error 0
> > data error -84 TERRI: 0x972e0000
> > [   71.885730] mmc1: running CQE recovery
> > [   71.888135] cqhci_recovery_finish: TCN: 0x00000000
> > [   71.888141] mmc1: cqhci: recovery done
> > [   71.888223] mmc1: cqhci: spurious TCN for tag 23
> > (...)
> > [   95.558736] mmc1: cqhci: error IRQ status: 0x00000000 cmd error 0
> > data error -84 TERRI: 0x822e0000
> > [   95.558768] mmc1: running CQE recovery
> > [   95.561073] cqhci_recovery_finish: TCN: 0x00000000
> > [   95.561078] mmc1: cqhci: recovery done
> > [   95.561288] device-mapper: verity: 179:3: data block 712181 is corrupted
> >
> > Now I get a spurious TCN after every recovery, with the only exception
> > being the one that ends up with dm-verity error.
> > So it'd seem that there's a race in which the "spurious" TCN hits a
> > pending request, enqueued right after recovery was completed.
> > I'm currently looking into how to fix it, but if you beat me to it I
> > can also test your patches and see if it fixes the dm-verity issue.
>
> OK, but here are some hacks to try:
(snip)
Thanks, fyi, with them applied I can see the exact same behaviour,
including what I'm seeing in the logs.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 2. As for the spurious task completion warning.
> >>> I initially thought that it was bening.
> >>> The check for !mrq is done before checking if we're currently doing recovery.
> >>> So if it's called just right at the end of recovery, right after the
> >>> cqhci_recover_mrqs is executed that would explain it.
> >>> With that being said if that irq handler is run right after the
> >>> recovery is finished we'll end up with a race where a new request,
> >>> that was just enqueued, might be mistakenly marked as done.
> >>> This would explain the dm-verity errors we're seeing.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'd argue that logging only the info that CQE recovery was executed is
> >>>>>>> not particularly helpful for someone looking into those logs.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As the comment says, that message is there because recovery reduces
> >>>>>> performance, it is not to aid debugging per se.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ideally we would have more data about the state the controller was in
> >>>>>>> when the error happened, or at least what caused the recovery to be
> >>>>>>> triggered.
> >>>>>>> The question here is how verbose should we be in this error scenario.
> >>>>>>> Looking at other error scenarios, in the case of a software timeout
> >>>>>>> we're dumping the controller registers. (cqhci_timeout)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Timeout means something is broken - either the driver, the cq engine
> >>>>>> or the card.  On the other hand, an error interrupt is most likely a
> >>>>>> CRC error which is not unexpected occasionally, due to thermal drift
> >>>>>> or perhaps interference.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Right, but my point is that we don't know what triggered CQE recovery.
> >>>>
> >>>> True, although probably a CRC error.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hence I thought that I'd be appropriate to match that and do the same
> >>>>>>> in CQE recovery logic.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It needs to be consistent. There are other pr_debugs, such as:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>                 pr_debug("%s: cqhci: Failed to clear tasks\n",
> >>>>>>                 pr_debug("%s: cqhci: Failed to halt\n", mmc_hostname(mmc));
> >>>>>>                 pr_debug("%s: cqhci: disable / re-enable\n", mmc_hostname(mmc));
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> which should perhaps be treated the same.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And there are no messages for errors from the commands in
> >>>>>> mmc_cqe_recovery().
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How about this.
> >>>>> As a compromise would it be okay to just do a single pr_warn directly
> >>>>> from cqhci_error_irq.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sure, printk_ratelimited() or __ratelimit()
> >>>>
> >>>>> We could simply promote the existing pr_debug to pr_warn at the
> >>>>> beginning of that function.
> >>>>> This would tell us what triggered the recovery. (controller timeout,
> >>>>> CRC mismatch)
> >>>>> We can also consider removing the "running CQE recovery" print for the
> >>>>> sake of brevity.
> >>>>
> >>>> No, that serves a different purpose.
> >>>>
> >>>>> The only downside of this that I can see is that we'd be running the
> >>>>> logic from the interrupt handler directly, but I can't see an easy way
> >>>>> around that.
> >>>>> What do you think?
> >>>>
> >>>> Should be OK with rate limiting.
> >>>
> >>> OK, I'll look into the rate limiting and will send a v2.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>       /* Forget about errors when recovery has already been triggered */
> >>>>>>>>>       if (cq_host->recovery_halt)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists