On 03/25/2017 06:12 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:07:31 +0800
> Cao jin <caoj.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> A more appropriate patch subject would be:
>
> vfio-pci: Report correctable errors and slot reset events to user
>
Correctable? It is confusing to me. Correctable error has its clear
definition in PCIe spec, shouldn't it be "non-fatal"?
>> From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This hardly seems accurate anymore. You could say Suggested-by and let
> Michael add a sign-off, but it's changed since he sent it.
>
>>
>> 0. What happens now (PCIE AER only)
>> Fatal errors cause a link reset. Non fatal errors don't.
>> All errors stop the QEMU guest eventually, but not immediately,
>> because it's detected and reported asynchronously.
>> Interrupts are forwarded as usual.
>> Correctable errors are not reported to user at all.
>>
>> Note:
>> PPC EEH is different, but this approach won't affect EEH. EEH treat
>> all errors as fatal ones in AER, so they will still be signalled to user
>> via the legacy eventfd. Besides, all devices/functions in a PE belongs
>> to the same IOMMU group, so the slot_reset handler in this approach
>> won't affect EEH either.
>>
>> 1. Correctable errors
>> Hardware can correct these errors without software intervention,
>> clear the error status is enough, this is what already done now.
>> No need to recover it, nothing changed, leave it as it is.
>>
>> 2. Fatal errors
>> They will induce a link reset. This is troublesome when user is
>> a QEMU guest. This approach doesn't touch the existing mechanism.
>>
>> 3. Non-fatal errors
>> Before this patch, they are signalled to user the same way as fatal ones.
>> With this patch, a new eventfd is introduced only for non-fatal error
>> notification. By splitting non-fatal ones out, it will benefit AER
>> recovery of a QEMU guest user.
>>
>> To maintain backwards compatibility with userspace, non-fatal errors
>> will continue to trigger via the existing error interrupt index if a
>> non-fatal signaling mechanism has not been registered.
>>
>> Note:
>> In case of PCI Express errors, kernel might request a slot reset
>> affecting our device (from our point of view this is a passive device
>> reset as opposed to an active one requested by vfio itself).
>> This might currently happen if a slot reset is requested by a driver
>> (other than vfio) bound to another device function in the same slot.
>> This will cause our device to lose its state so report this event to
>> userspace.
>
> I tried to convey this in my last comments, I don't think this is an
> appropriate commit log. Lead with what is the problem you're trying to
> fix and why, what is the benefit to the user, and how is the change
> accomplished. If you want to provide a State of Error Handling in
> VFIO, append it after the main points of the commit log.
ok.
>
> I also asked in my previous comments to provide examples of errors that
> might trigger correctable errors to the user, this comment seems to
> have been missed. In my experience, AERs generated during device
> assignment are generally hardware faults or induced by bad guest
> drivers. These are cases where a single fatal error is an appropriate
> and sufficient response. We've scaled back this support to the point
> where we're only improving the situation of correctable errors and I'm
> not convinced this is worthwhile and we're not simply checking a box on
> an ill-conceived marketing requirements document.
Sorry. I noticed that question: "what actual errors do we expect
userspace to see as non-fatal errors?", but I am confused about it.
Correctable, non-fatal, fatal errors are clearly defined in PCIe spec,
and Uncorrectable Error Severity Register will tell which is fatal, and
which is non-fatal, this register is configurable, they are device
specific as I guess. AER core driver distinguish them by
pci_channel_io_normal/pci_channel_io_frozen, So I don't understand your
question. Or
Or, Do you mean we could list the default non-fatal error of
Uncorrectable Error Severity Register which is provided by PCIe spec?
>
> I had also commented asking how the hypervisor is expected to know
> whether the guest supports AER. With the existing support of a single
> fatal error, the hypervisor halts the VM regardless of the error
> severity or guest support. Now we have the opportunity that the
> hypervisor can forward a correctable error to the guest... and hope the
> right thing occurs? I never saw any response to this comment.
>
I noticed this question, you said: "That doesn't imply a problem with
this approach, the user (hypervisor) would be at fault for any
difference in handling in that case.". Maybe I understand you wrong.
>From my limit understanding, QEMU doesn't has a way to know whether a
guest has AER support, AER support need several kbuild configuration, I
don't know how qemu is expected to know these.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Cao jin <caoj.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> v6 changelog:
>> Address all the comments from MST.
>>
>> drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_intrs.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h | 2 ++
>> include/uapi/linux/vfio.h | 2 ++
>> 4 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
>> index 324c52e..71f9a8a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
>> @@ -441,7 +441,9 @@ static int vfio_pci_get_irq_count(struct vfio_pci_device *vdev, int irq_type)
>>
>> return (flags & PCI_MSIX_FLAGS_QSIZE) + 1;
>> }
>> - } else if (irq_type == VFIO_PCI_ERR_IRQ_INDEX) {
>> + } else if (irq_type == VFIO_PCI_ERR_IRQ_INDEX ||
>> + irq_type == VFIO_PCI_NON_FATAL_ERR_IRQ_INDEX ||
>> + irq_type == VFIO_PCI_PASSIVE_RESET_IRQ_INDEX) {
>
> Should we add a typdef to alias VFIO_PCI_ERR_IRQ_INDEX to
> VFIO_PCI_FATAL_ERR_IRQ?
>
>> if (pci_is_pcie(vdev->pdev))
>> return 1;
>> } else if (irq_type == VFIO_PCI_REQ_IRQ_INDEX) {
>> @@ -796,6 +798,8 @@ static long vfio_pci_ioctl(void *device_data,
>> case VFIO_PCI_REQ_IRQ_INDEX:
>> break;
>> case VFIO_PCI_ERR_IRQ_INDEX:
>> + case VFIO_PCI_NON_FATAL_ERR_IRQ_INDEX:
>> + case VFIO_PCI_PASSIVE_RESET_IRQ_INDEX:
>> if (pci_is_pcie(vdev->pdev))
>> break;
>> /* pass thru to return error */
>> @@ -1282,7 +1286,9 @@ static pci_ers_result_t vfio_pci_aer_err_detected(struct pci_dev *pdev,
>>
>> mutex_lock(&vdev->igate);
>>
>> - if (vdev->err_trigger)
>> + if (state == pci_channel_io_normal && vdev->non_fatal_err_trigger)
>> + eventfd_signal(vdev->non_fatal_err_trigger, 1);
>> + else if (vdev->err_trigger)
>> eventfd_signal(vdev->err_trigger, 1);
>
> Should another patch rename err_trigger to fatal_err_trigger to better
> describe its new function?
>
>>
>> mutex_unlock(&vdev->igate);
>> @@ -1292,8 +1298,47 @@ static pci_ers_result_t vfio_pci_aer_err_detected(struct pci_dev *pdev,
>> return PCI_ERS_RESULT_CAN_RECOVER;
>> }
>>
>> +/*
>> + * In case of PCI Express errors, kernel might request a slot reset
>> + * affecting our device (from our point of view, this is a passive device
>> + * reset as opposed to an active one requested by vfio itself).
>> + * This might currently happen if a slot reset is requested by a driver
>> + * (other than vfio) bound to another device function in the same slot.
>> + * This will cause our device to lose its state, so report this event to
>> + * userspace.
>> + */
>
> I really dislike "passive reset". I expect you avoided "slot reset"
> because we have other sources where vfio itself initiates a slot
> reset. Is "spurious" more appropriate? "Collateral"?
>
>> +static pci_ers_result_t vfio_pci_aer_slot_reset(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>> +{
>> + struct vfio_pci_device *vdev;
>> + struct vfio_device *device;
>> + static pci_ers_result_t err = PCI_ERS_RESULT_NONE;
>> +
>> + device = vfio_device_get_from_dev(&pdev->dev);
>> + if (!device)
>> + goto err_dev;
>> +
>> + vdev = vfio_device_data(device);
>> + if (!vdev)
>> + goto err_data;
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&vdev->igate);
>> +
>> + if (vdev->passive_reset_trigger)
>> + eventfd_signal(vdev->passive_reset_trigger, 1);
>
> What are the exact user requirements here, we now have:
>
> A) err_trigger
> B) non_fatal_err_trigger
> C) passive_reset_trigger
>
> Currently we only have A, which makes things very simple, we notify on
> errors and assume the user doesn't care otherwise.
>
> The expectation here seems to be that A, B, and C are all registered,
> but what if they're not? What if in the above function, only A & B are
> registered, do we trigger A here? Are B & C really intrinsic to each
> other and we should continue to issue only A unless both B & C are
> registered? In that case, should we be exposing a single IRQ INDEX to
> the user with two sub-indexes, defined as sub-index 0 is correctable
> error, sub-index 1 is slot reset, and promote any error to A if they
> are not both registered?
>
I will see how to implement these.
--
Sincerely,
Cao jin
