On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 8:47 AM Pranjal Shrivastava <praan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 8:28 PM Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 10:33 AM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2024-06-17 5:18 pm, Rob Clark wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 6:07 AM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On 04/06/2024 4:01 pm, Rob Clark wrote:
> > > >>> From: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Parse out the bitfields for easier-to-read fault messages.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >>> ---
> > > >>> Stephen was wanting easier to read fault messages.. so I typed this up.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Resend with the new iommu list address
> > > >>>
> > > >>> drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > >>> drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.h | 5 +++
> > > >>> 2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
> > > >>> index c572d877b0e1..06712d73519c 100644
> > > >>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
> > > >>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
> > > >>> @@ -411,6 +411,8 @@ static irqreturn_t arm_smmu_context_fault(int irq, void *dev)
> > > >>> unsigned long iova;
> > > >>> struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain = dev;
> > > >>> struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = smmu_domain->smmu;
> > > >>> + static DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(rs, DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_INTERVAL,
> > > >>> + DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_BURST);
> > > >>> int idx = smmu_domain->cfg.cbndx;
> > > >>> int ret;
> > > >>>
> > > >>> @@ -425,10 +427,53 @@ static irqreturn_t arm_smmu_context_fault(int irq, void *dev)
> > > >>> ret = report_iommu_fault(&smmu_domain->domain, NULL, iova,
> > > >>> fsynr & ARM_SMMU_FSYNR0_WNR ? IOMMU_FAULT_WRITE : IOMMU_FAULT_READ);
> > > >>>
> > > >>> - if (ret == -ENOSYS)
> > > >>> - dev_err_ratelimited(smmu->dev,
> > > >>> - "Unhandled context fault: fsr=0x%x, iova=0x%08lx, fsynr=0x%x, cbfrsynra=0x%x, cb=%d\n",
> > > >>> - fsr, iova, fsynr, cbfrsynra, idx);
> > > >>> + if (ret == -ENOSYS && __ratelimit(&rs)) {
> > > >>> + static const struct {
> > > >>> + u32 mask; const char *name;
> > > >>> + } fsr_bits[] = {
> > > >>> + { ARM_SMMU_FSR_MULTI, "MULTI" },
> > > >>> + { ARM_SMMU_FSR_SS, "SS" },
> > > >>> + { ARM_SMMU_FSR_UUT, "UUT" },
> > > >>> + { ARM_SMMU_FSR_ASF, "ASF" },
> > > >>> + { ARM_SMMU_FSR_TLBLKF, "TLBLKF" },
> > > >>> + { ARM_SMMU_FSR_TLBMCF, "TLBMCF" },
> > > >>> + { ARM_SMMU_FSR_EF, "EF" },
> > > >>> + { ARM_SMMU_FSR_PF, "PF" },
> > > >>> + { ARM_SMMU_FSR_AFF, "AFF" },
> > > >>> + { ARM_SMMU_FSR_TF, "TF" },
> > > >>> + }, fsynr0_bits[] = {
> > > >>> + { ARM_SMMU_FSYNR0_WNR, "WNR" },
> > > >>> + { ARM_SMMU_FSYNR0_PNU, "PNU" },
> > > >>> + { ARM_SMMU_FSYNR0_IND, "IND" },
> > > >>> + { ARM_SMMU_FSYNR0_NSATTR, "NSATTR" },
> > > >>> + { ARM_SMMU_FSYNR0_PTWF, "PTWF" },
> > > >>> + { ARM_SMMU_FSYNR0_AFR, "AFR" },
> > > >>> + };
> > > >>> +
> > > >>> + pr_err("%s %s: Unhandled context fault: fsr=0x%x (",
> > > >>> + dev_driver_string(smmu->dev), dev_name(smmu->dev), fsr);
> > > >>> +
> > > >>> + for (int i = 0, n = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(fsr_bits); i++) {
> > > >>> + if (fsr & fsr_bits[i].mask) {
> > > >>> + pr_cont("%s%s", (n > 0) ? "|" : "", fsr_bits[i].name);
> > > >>
> > > >> Given that SMMU faults have a high likelihood of correlating with other
> > > >> errors, e.g. the initiating device also reporting that it got an abort
> > > >> back, this much pr_cont is a recipe for an unreadable mess. Furthermore,
> > > >> just imagine how "helpful" this would be when faults in two contexts are
> > > >> reported by two different CPUs at the same time ;)
> > > >
> > > > It looks like arm_smmu_context_fault() is only used with non-threaded
> > > > irq's. And this fallback is only used if driver doesn't register it's
> > > > own fault handler. So I don't think this will be a problem.
> > >
> > > You don't think two different IRQs can fire on two different CPUs at the
> > > same time (or close to)? It's already bad enough when multiple CPUs
> > > panic and one has to pick apart line-by-line interleaving of the
> > > registers/stacktraces - imagine how much more utterly unusable that
> > > would be with bits of different dumps randomly pr_cont'ed together onto
> > > the same line(s)...
> >
> > _different_ irq's, yes
> >
> > Anyways, the reason for pr_cont() was that there wasn't another
> > reasonable way to decide where separator chars were needed with a
> > single pr_err(). I could instead construct a string on stack and
> > print that in a single call, but pr_cont() seemed like the more
> > reasonable alternative.
> >
> > BR,
> > -R
>
> The string approach sounds good to me, if possible, let's break this
> out into a helper function, something like `arm_smmu_log_ctx_fault`
> and put it under a module parameter, I guess? Not sure if this
> requires a new Kconfig option, would like Robin's opinion on this.
I did notice that qcom_smmu_context_fault() appeared recently, also
adding similar pretty-print.. but only for things with a tbu driver
(and a bit more open coded). So a helper would probably make sense.
Less sure about mod param or Kconfig, but I tend to be of the opinion
that the kernel already has too much configurability.. others may have
a different view.
BR,
-R
> Thanks,
> Pranjal
>
> >
> > > Even when unrelated stuff gets interleaved because other CPUs just
> > > happen to be calling printk() at the same time for unrelated reasons
> > > it's still annoying, and pr_cont makes a bigger mess than not.
> > > >> I'd prefer to retain the original message as-is, so there is at least
> > > >> still an unambiguous "atomic" view of a fault's entire state, then
> > > >> follow it with a decode more in the style of arm64's ESR logging. TBH I
> > > >> also wouldn't disapprove of hiding the additional decode behind a
> > > >> command-line/runtime parameter, since a fault storm can cripple a system
> > > >> enough as it is, without making the interrupt handler spend even longer
> > > >> printing to a potentially slow console.
> > > >
> > > > It _is_ ratelimited. But we could perhaps use a higher loglevel (pr_debug?)
> > >
> > > Yeah, I'd have no complaint with pr_debug/dev_dbg either, if that suits
> > > your use case. True that the ratelimit may typically mitigate the
> > > overall impact, but still in the worst case with a sufficiently slow
> > > console and/or a sufficiently large amount to print per __ratelimit()
> > > call, it can end up being slow enough to stay below the threshold. Don't
> > > ask me how I know that :)
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Robin.
