[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9cc2010f-269c-4d23-b284-6fe4162f8810@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 10:26:14 +0800
From: Ethan Zhao <haifeng.zhao@...ux.intel.com>
To: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, kevin.tian@...el.com,
bhelgaas@...gle.com, dwmw2@...radead.org, will@...nel.org,
robin.murphy@....com, lukas@...ner.de
Cc: linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v10 0/5] fix vt-d hard lockup when hotplug ATS capable
device
On 1/18/2024 8:46 AM, Baolu Lu wrote:
> On 1/17/24 5:00 PM, Ethan Zhao wrote:
>> + /*
>> + * If the ATS invalidation target device is gone this moment
>> (surprise
>> + * removed, died, no response) don't try this request again.
>> this
>> + * request will not get valid result anymore. but the request
>> was
>> + * already submitted to hardware and we predict to get a ITE in
>> + * followed batch of request, if so, it will get handled then.
>> + */
>> + if (target_pdev && !pci_device_is_present(target_pdev))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>
> Again, we should not ignore the error triggered by the current request.
> Do not leave it to the next one. The WAIT descriptor is a fence. Handle
> everything within its boundary.
We didn't set fence bit to every ATS invalidation wait descriptor,
only the intel_drain_pasid_prq() queue a drain page requests with FN
sit, but that is not called in hotplug removal path.
Thanks,
Ethan
>
> Best regards,
> baolu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists