Message-ID: <61f23d43-1c4d-a11e-a798-c938a896ddb3@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Dec 2019 21:54:32 +0100
From:   Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: phy: make phy_error() report which PHY has
 failed

On 18.12.2019 00:34, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 10:41:34PM +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>> On 17.12.2019 13:53, Russell King wrote:
>>> phy_error() is called from phy_interrupt() or phy_state_machine(), and
>>> uses WARN_ON() to print a backtrace. The backtrace is not useful when
>>> reporting a PHY error.
>>>
>>> However, a system may contain multiple ethernet PHYs, and phy_error()
>>> gives no clue which one caused the problem.
>>>
>>> Replace WARN_ON() with a call to phydev_err() so that we can see which
>>> PHY had an error, and also inform the user that we are halting the PHY.
>>>
>>> Fixes: fa7b28c11bbf ("net: phy: print stack trace in phy_error")
>>> Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
>>> ---
>>> There is another related problem in this area. If an error is detected
>>> while the PHY is running, phy_error() moves to PHY_HALTED state. If we
>>> try to take the network device down, then:
>>>
>>> void phy_stop(struct phy_device *phydev)
>>> {
>>>         if (!phy_is_started(phydev)) {
>>>                 WARN(1, "called from state %s\n",
>>>                      phy_state_to_str(phydev->state));
>>>                 return;
>>>         }
>>>
>>> triggers, and we never do any of the phy_stop() cleanup. I'm not sure
>>> what the best way to solve this is - introducing a PHY_ERROR state may
>>> be a solution, but I think we want some phy_is_started() sites to
>>> return true for it and others to return false.
>>>
>>> Heiner - you introduced the above warning, could you look at improving
>>> this case so we don't print a warning and taint the kernel when taking
>>> a network device down after phy_error() please?
>>>
>> I think we need both types of information:
>> - the affected PHY device
>> - the stack trace to see where the issue was triggered
> 
> Can you please explain why the stack trace is useful.  For the paths
> that are reachable, all it tells you is whether it was reached via
> the interrupt or the workqueue.
> 
> If it's via the interrupt, the rest of the backtrace beyond that is
> irrelevant.  If it's the workqueue, the backtrace doesn't go back
> very far, and doesn't tell you what operation triggered it.
> 
> If it's important to see where or why phy_error() was called, there
> are much better ways of doing that, notably passing a string into
> phy_error() to describe the actual error itself.  That would convey
> way more useful information than the backtrace does.
> 
> I have been faced with these backtraces, and they have not been at
> all useful for diagnosing the problem.
> 
"The problem" comes in two flavors:
1. The problem that caused the PHY error
2. The problem caused by the PHY error (if we decide to not
   always switch to HALTED state)

We can't do much for case 1, maybe we could add an errno argument
to phy_error(). To facilitate analyzing case 2 we'd need to change
code pieces like the following.

case a:
err = f1();
case b:
err = f2();

if (err)
	phy_error()

For my understanding: What caused the PHY error in your case(s)?
Which info would have been useful for analyzing the error?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists