On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:12:33AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:47:00 +0800
> Cao jin <caoj.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > 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"?
>
> My mistake, 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'm trying to ask why is this patch series useful. It's clearly
> possible for us to signal non-fatal errors for a device to a guest, but
> why is it necessarily a good idea to do so? What additional RAS
> feature is gained by this? Can we give a single example of a real
> world scenario where a guest has been shutdown due to a non-fatal error
> that the guest driver would have handled?
We've been discussing AER for months if not years.
Isn't it a bit too late to ask whether AER recovery
by guests it useful at all?
> > > 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.
>
>
> Isn't that a problem? See my reply to QEMU patch 3/3.
Yes but it's the same with bare metal IIUC.
> > >>
> > >> 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.
> >
