On 4/16/2017 9:16 PM, Xie XiuQi wrote:
On 2017/4/17 11:08, Xie XiuQi wrote:
On 3/30/2017 4:31 AM, Xie XiuQi wrote:
Add a new trace event for ARM processor error information, so that
the user will know what error occurred. With this information the
user may take appropriate action.
These trace events are consistent with the ARM processor error
information table which defined in UEFI 2.6 spec section N.2.4.4.1.
---
v2: add trace enabled condition as Steven's suggestion.
fix a typo.
---
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tyler Baicar <tbaicar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Xie XiuQi <xiexiuqi@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
...
+/*
+ * First define the enums in MM_ACTION_RESULT to be exported to userspace
+ * via TRACE_DEFINE_ENUM().
+ */
+#undef EM
+#undef EMe
+#define EM(a, b) TRACE_DEFINE_ENUM(a);
+#define EMe(a, b) TRACE_DEFINE_ENUM(a);
+
+ARM_PROC_ERR_TYPE
+ARM_PROC_ERR_FLAGS
Are the above two lines supposed to be here?
+
+/*
+ * Now redefine the EM() and EMe() macros to map the enums to the strings
+ * that will be printed in the output.
+ */
+#undef EM
+#undef EMe
+#define EM(a, b) { a, b },
+#define EMe(a, b) { a, b }
+
+TRACE_EVENT(arm_proc_err,
I think it would be better to keep this similar to the naming of the current RAS trace events (right now we have mc_event, arm_event, aer_event, etc.). I would suggest using "arm_err_info_event" since this is handling the error information structures of the arm errors.
+
+ TP_PROTO(const struct cper_arm_err_info *err),
+
+ TP_ARGS(err),
+
+ TP_STRUCT__entry(
+ __field(u8, type)
+ __field(u16, multiple_error)
+ __field(u8, flags)
+ __field(u64, error_info)
+ __field(u64, virt_fault_addr)
+ __field(u64, physical_fault_addr)
Validation bits should also be a part of this structure that way user space tools will know which of these fields are valid.
Could we use the default value to check the validation which we have checked in TP_fast_assign?
Yes, true...I guess we really don't need the validation bits then.
+ ),
+
+ TP_fast_assign(
+ __entry->type = err->type;
+
+ if (err->validation_bits & CPER_ARM_INFO_VALID_MULTI_ERR)
+ __entry->multiple_error = err->multiple_error;
+ else
+ __entry->multiple_error = ~0;
+
+ if (err->validation_bits & CPER_ARM_INFO_VALID_FLAGS)
+ __entry->flags = err->flags;
+ else
+ __entry->flags = ~0;
+
+ if (err->validation_bits & CPER_ARM_INFO_VALID_ERR_INFO)
+ __entry->error_info = err->error_info;
+ else
+ __entry->error_info = 0ULL;
+
+ if (err->validation_bits & CPER_ARM_INFO_VALID_VIRT_ADDR)
+ __entry->virt_fault_addr = err->virt_fault_addr;
+ else
+ __entry->virt_fault_addr = 0ULL;
+
+ if (err->validation_bits & CPER_ARM_INFO_VALID_PHYSICAL_ADDR)
+ __entry->physical_fault_addr = err->physical_fault_addr;
+ else
+ __entry->physical_fault_addr = 0ULL;
+ ),
+
+ TP_printk("ARM Processor Error: type %s; count: %u; flags: %s;"
I think the "ARM Processor Error:" part of this should just be removed. Here's the output with this removed and the trace event renamed to arm_err_info_event. I think this looks much cleaner and matches the style used with the arm_event.
<idle>-0 [020] .ns. 366.592434: arm_event: affinity level: 2; MPIDR: 0000000000000000; MIDR: 00000000510f8000; running state: 1; PSCI state: 0
<idle>-0 [020] .ns. 366.592437: arm_err_info_event: type cache error; count: 0; flags: 0x3; error info: 0000000000c20058; virtual address: 0000000000000000; physical address: 0000000000000000
As this section is ARM Processor Error Section, how about use arm_proc_err_event?
This is not for the ARM Processor Error Section, that is what the
arm_event is handling. What you are adding this trace support for here
is called the ARM Processor Error Information (UEFI 2.6 spec section
N.2.4.4.1). So I think your trace event here should be called
arm_err_info_event. This will also be consistent with the other two
trace events that I'm planning on adding:
arm_ctx_info_event: ARM Processor Context Information (UEFI 2.6 section
N.2.4.4.2)
arm_vendor_info_event: This is the "Vendor Specific Error Information"
in the ARM Processor Error Section (Table 260). It's possible I may just
add this into the arm_event trace event, but I haven't looked into it
enough yet.
Thanks,
Tyler
--
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
