| Message ID | 1519374244-20539-4-git-send-email-poza@codeaurora.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Delegated to: | Bjorn Helgaas |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 01:54:00PM +0530, Oza Pawandeep wrote: > This patch protects pci_do_recovery with mutex. pcie_do_recovery() Please explain why the mutex is necessary. What bad things happen without the mutex? You named (some) of the other things "pcie"; maybe use "pcie" in the mutex name as well so they look the same. > Signed-off-by: Oza Pawandeep <poza@codeaurora.org> > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/pcie-err.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/pcie-err.c > index fcd5add..f830975 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/pcie-err.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/pcie-err.c > @@ -20,6 +20,8 @@ > #include <linux/pcieport_if.h> > #include "portdrv.h" > > +static DEFINE_MUTEX(pci_err_recovery_lock); > + > struct aer_broadcast_data { > enum pci_channel_state state; > enum pci_ers_result result; > @@ -283,6 +285,8 @@ void pcie_do_recovery(struct pci_dev *dev, int severity) > pci_ers_result_t status, result = PCI_ERS_RESULT_RECOVERED; > enum pci_channel_state state; > > + mutex_lock(&pci_err_recovery_lock); > + > if (severity == AER_FATAL) > state = pci_channel_io_frozen; > else > @@ -326,9 +330,11 @@ void pcie_do_recovery(struct pci_dev *dev, int severity) > report_resume); > > dev_info(&dev->dev, "Device recovery successful\n"); > + mutex_unlock(&pci_err_recovery_lock); > return; > > failed: > /* TODO: Should kernel panic here? */ > dev_info(&dev->dev, "Device recovery failed\n"); > + mutex_unlock(&pci_err_recovery_lock); > } > -- > Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., > a Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project. >
On 2018-02-24 05:15, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 01:54:00PM +0530, Oza Pawandeep wrote: >> This patch protects pci_do_recovery with mutex. > > pcie_do_recovery() > > Please explain why the mutex is necessary. What bad things happen > without the mutex? > > You named (some) of the other things "pcie"; maybe use "pcie" in the > mutex name as well so they look the same. > PCIe specification: 6.2.10 When DPC is triggered due to receipt of an uncorrectable error Message, the Requester ID from the Message is recorded in the DPC Error Source ID register and that Message is discarded and not forwarded Upstream. So, having said that, what we think is we dont need Mutex, because in DPC enabled system either AER or DPC can be triggered, not both. so right now there is no need of guarding pcie_do_recovery() with mutex. but I was in a thought that; since pcie_do_recovery is supposed to be used by error clients, from sw architecture point of view, adding mutex takes care of concurrency if it exists (in corner cases, faulty hw where both AER and DPC triggered etc..) We can choose to drop this patch, since we dont require mutex. Bjorn, please advise. >> Signed-off-by: Oza Pawandeep <poza@codeaurora.org> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/pcie-err.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/pcie-err.c >> index fcd5add..f830975 100644 >> --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/pcie-err.c >> +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/pcie-err.c >> @@ -20,6 +20,8 @@ >> #include <linux/pcieport_if.h> >> #include "portdrv.h" >> >> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(pci_err_recovery_lock); >> + >> struct aer_broadcast_data { >> enum pci_channel_state state; >> enum pci_ers_result result; >> @@ -283,6 +285,8 @@ void pcie_do_recovery(struct pci_dev *dev, int >> severity) >> pci_ers_result_t status, result = PCI_ERS_RESULT_RECOVERED; >> enum pci_channel_state state; >> >> + mutex_lock(&pci_err_recovery_lock); >> + >> if (severity == AER_FATAL) >> state = pci_channel_io_frozen; >> else >> @@ -326,9 +330,11 @@ void pcie_do_recovery(struct pci_dev *dev, int >> severity) >> report_resume); >> >> dev_info(&dev->dev, "Device recovery successful\n"); >> + mutex_unlock(&pci_err_recovery_lock); >> return; >> >> failed: >> /* TODO: Should kernel panic here? */ >> dev_info(&dev->dev, "Device recovery failed\n"); >> + mutex_unlock(&pci_err_recovery_lock); >> } >> -- >> Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm >> Technologies, Inc., >> a Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a >> Linux Foundation Collaborative Project. >>
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:46:34AM +0530, poza@codeaurora.org wrote: > On 2018-02-24 05:15, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 01:54:00PM +0530, Oza Pawandeep wrote: > > > This patch protects pci_do_recovery with mutex. > > > > pcie_do_recovery() > > > > Please explain why the mutex is necessary. What bad things happen > > without the mutex? > > > > You named (some) of the other things "pcie"; maybe use "pcie" in the > > mutex name as well so they look the same. > > > > PCIe specification: 6.2.10 > When DPC is triggered due to receipt of an uncorrectable error Message, the > Requester ID from the Message is recorded in the DPC Error Source ID > register and that Message is discarded and not forwarded Upstream. > > So, having said that, what we think is we dont need Mutex, because in DPC > enabled system either AER or DPC can be triggered, not both. > so right now there is no need of guarding pcie_do_recovery() with mutex. > > but I was in a thought that; since pcie_do_recovery is supposed to be used > by error clients, > from sw architecture point of view, adding mutex takes care of concurrency > if it exists (in corner cases, faulty hw where both AER and DPC triggered > etc..) > > We can choose to drop this patch, since we dont require mutex. > Bjorn, please advise. I'm not trying to convince you that we don't need the mutex. My point is that if we *do* need it, the changelog needs to say *why* (and ideally the code will either have a comment or it will be obvious from the code why it's necessary). If we don't have a clear indication that it's required, I guess I would omit it. > > > Signed-off-by: Oza Pawandeep <poza@codeaurora.org> > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/pcie-err.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/pcie-err.c > > > index fcd5add..f830975 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/pcie-err.c > > > +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/pcie-err.c > > > @@ -20,6 +20,8 @@ > > > #include <linux/pcieport_if.h> > > > #include "portdrv.h" > > > > > > +static DEFINE_MUTEX(pci_err_recovery_lock); > > > + > > > struct aer_broadcast_data { > > > enum pci_channel_state state; > > > enum pci_ers_result result; > > > @@ -283,6 +285,8 @@ void pcie_do_recovery(struct pci_dev *dev, int > > > severity) > > > pci_ers_result_t status, result = PCI_ERS_RESULT_RECOVERED; > > > enum pci_channel_state state; > > > > > > + mutex_lock(&pci_err_recovery_lock); > > > + > > > if (severity == AER_FATAL) > > > state = pci_channel_io_frozen; > > > else > > > @@ -326,9 +330,11 @@ void pcie_do_recovery(struct pci_dev *dev, int > > > severity) > > > report_resume); > > > > > > dev_info(&dev->dev, "Device recovery successful\n"); > > > + mutex_unlock(&pci_err_recovery_lock); > > > return; > > > > > > failed: > > > /* TODO: Should kernel panic here? */ > > > dev_info(&dev->dev, "Device recovery failed\n"); > > > + mutex_unlock(&pci_err_recovery_lock); > > > } > > > -- > > > Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm > > > Technologies, Inc., > > > a Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, > > > a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project. > > >
diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/pcie-err.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/pcie-err.c index fcd5add..f830975 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/pcie-err.c +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/pcie-err.c @@ -20,6 +20,8 @@ #include <linux/pcieport_if.h> #include "portdrv.h" +static DEFINE_MUTEX(pci_err_recovery_lock); + struct aer_broadcast_data { enum pci_channel_state state; enum pci_ers_result result; @@ -283,6 +285,8 @@ void pcie_do_recovery(struct pci_dev *dev, int severity) pci_ers_result_t status, result = PCI_ERS_RESULT_RECOVERED; enum pci_channel_state state; + mutex_lock(&pci_err_recovery_lock); + if (severity == AER_FATAL) state = pci_channel_io_frozen; else @@ -326,9 +330,11 @@ void pcie_do_recovery(struct pci_dev *dev, int severity) report_resume); dev_info(&dev->dev, "Device recovery successful\n"); + mutex_unlock(&pci_err_recovery_lock); return; failed: /* TODO: Should kernel panic here? */ dev_info(&dev->dev, "Device recovery failed\n"); + mutex_unlock(&pci_err_recovery_lock); }
This patch protects pci_do_recovery with mutex. Signed-off-by: Oza Pawandeep <poza@codeaurora.org>