On Sat, 2019-06-08 at 11:05 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 10:16:11AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > Those IP blocks don't need any SW coordination at runtime. The drivers
> > don't share data nor communicate with each other. There is absolultely
> > no reason to go down that path.
>
> Let me set one thing straight: the EDAC "subsystem" if you will - or
> that pile of code which does error counting and reporting - has its
> limitations in supporting one EDAC driver per platform. And whenever we
> have two drivers loadable on a platform, we have to do dirty hacks like
>
> 301375e76432 ("EDAC: Add owner check to the x86 platform drivers")
>
> What that means is, that if you need to call EDAC logging routines or
> whatnot from two different drivers, there's no locking, no nothing. So
> it might work or it might set your cat on fire.
Should we fix that then instead ? What are the big issues with adding
some basic locking ? being called from NMIs ?
If the separate drivers operate on distinct counters I don't see a big
problem there.
> IOW, having multiple separate "drivers" or representations of RAS
> functionality using EDAC facilities is something that hasn't been
> done. Well, almost. highbank_mc_edac.c and highbank_l2_edac.c is one
> example but they make sure they don't step on each other's toes by using
> different EDAC pieces - a device vs a memory controller abstraction.
That sounds like a reasonable requirement.
> And now the moment all of a sudden you decide you want for those
> separate "drivers" to synchronize on something, you need to do something
> hacky like the amd_register_ecc_decoder() thing, for example, because we
> need to call into the EDAC memory controller driver to decode a DRAM ECC
> error properly, while the rest of the error types get decoded somewhere
> else...
>
> Then there comes the issue with code reuse - wouldn't it be great if a
> memory controller driver can be shared between platform drivers instead of
> copying it in both?
>
> We already do that - see fsl_ddr_edac.c which gets shared between PPC
> *and* ARM. drivers/edac/skx_common.c is another example for Intel chips.
>
> Now, if you have a platform with 10 IP blocks which each have RAS
> functionality, are you saying you'll do 10 different pieces called
>
> <platform_name>_<ip_block#>_edac.c
>
> ?
>
> And if <next_platform> has an old IP block with the old RAS
> functionality, you load <platform_name>_<ip_block>_edac.c on the new
> platform too?
I'n not sure why <platform_name> ...
Anyway, let's get back to the specific case of our Amazon platform here
since it's a concrete example.
Hanna, can you give us a reasonably exhaustive list of how many such
"drivers" we'll want in the EDAC subsystem and whether you envision any
coordination requirement between them or not ?
Cheers,
Ben.
