On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 09:18:08AM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 07:59:21PM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 11:33:50AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > On Mon, 30 May 2022 21:06:57 +0200 Lukas Wunner <lukas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 01:32:30PM -0700, ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > + /* First 2 dwords have already been read */
> > > > > + length -= 2;
> > > > > + /* Read the rest of the response payload */
> > > > > + for (i = 0; i < min(length, task->response_pl_sz / sizeof(u32)); i++) {
> > > > > + pci_read_config_dword(pdev, offset + PCI_DOE_READ,
> > > > > + &task->response_pl[i]);
> > > > > + pci_write_config_dword(pdev, offset + PCI_DOE_READ, 0);
> > > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > You need to check the Data Object Ready bit. The device may clear the
> > > > bit prematurely (e.g. as a result of a concurrent FLR or Conventional
> > > > Reset). You'll continue reading zero dwords from the mailbox and
> > > > pretend success to the caller even though the response is truncated.
> > > >
> > > > If you're concerned about performance when checking the bit on every
> > > > loop iteration, checking it only on the last but one iteration should
> > > > be sufficient to detect truncation.
> > >
> > > Good catch - I hate corner cases. Thankfully this one is trivial to
> > > check for.
> >
> > Ok looking at the spec: Strictly speaking this needs to happen multiple
> > times both in doe_statemachine_work() and inside pci_doe_recv_resp();
> > not just in this loop. :-(
> >
> > This is because, the check in doe_statemachine_work() only covers the
> > 1st dword read IIUC.
>
> The spec says "this bit indicates the DOE instance has a *data object*
> available to be read by system firmware/software".
Ok yea. I got confused by step 6 in sec 6.30.2.
>
> So, the entire object is available for reading, not just one dword.
Yes cool!
>
> You've already got checks in place for the first two dwords which
> cover reading an "all zeroes" response. No need to amend them.
>
> You only need to re-check the Data Object Ready bit on the last-but-one
> dword in case the function was reset concurrently. Per sec. 6.30.2,
> "An FLR to a Function must result in the aborting of any DOE transfer
> in progress."
I think I disagree. Even if we do that and an FLR comes before the last read
the last read could be 0's.
I think the interpretation of the data needs to happen above this and if an FLR
happens during this read we are going to have other issues.
But I can add the check if you feel strongly about it.
>
>
> > > > > +static irqreturn_t pci_doe_irq_handler(int irq, void *data)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct pci_doe_mb *doe_mb = data;
> > > > > + struct pci_dev *pdev = doe_mb->pdev;
> > > > > + int offset = doe_mb->cap_offset;
> > > > > + u32 val;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + pci_read_config_dword(pdev, offset + PCI_DOE_STATUS, &val);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /* Leave the error case to be handled outside IRQ */
> > > > > + if (FIELD_GET(PCI_DOE_STATUS_ERROR, val)) {
> > > > > + mod_delayed_work(system_wq, &doe_mb->statemachine, 0);
> > > > > + return IRQ_HANDLED;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (FIELD_GET(PCI_DOE_STATUS_INT_STATUS, val)) {
> > > > > + pci_write_config_dword(pdev, offset + PCI_DOE_STATUS,
> > > > > + PCI_DOE_STATUS_INT_STATUS);
> > > > > + mod_delayed_work(system_wq, &doe_mb->statemachine, 0);
> > > > > + return IRQ_HANDLED;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > > + return IRQ_NONE;
> > > > > +}
> > > >
> > > > PCIe 6.0, table 7-316 says that an interrupt is also raised when
> > > > "the DOE Busy bit has been Cleared", yet such an interrupt is
> > > > not handled here. It is incorrectly treated as a spurious
> > > > interrupt by returning IRQ_NONE. The right thing to do
> > > > is probably to wake the state machine in case it's polling
> > > > for the Busy flag to clear.
> > >
> > > Ah. I remember testing this via a lot of hacking on the QEMU code
> > > to inject the various races that can occur (it was really ugly to do).
> > >
> > > Guess we lost the handling at some point. I think your fix
> > > is the right one.
> >
> > Perhaps I am missing something but digging into this more. I disagree
> > that the handler fails to handle this case. If I read the spec correctly
> > DOE Interrupt Status must be set when an interrupt is generated.
> > The handler wakes the state machine in that case. The state machine
> > then checks for busy if there is work to be done.
>
> Right, I was mistaken, sorry for the noise.
NP I'm not always following this either.
>
>
> > Normally we would not even need to check for status error. But that is
> > special cased because clearing that status is left to the state machine.
>
> That however looks wrong because the DOE Interrupt Status bit is never
> cleared after a DOE Error is signaled. The state machine performs an
> explicit abort upon an error by setting the DOE Abort bit, but that
> doesn't seem to clear DOE Interrupt Status:
>
> Per section 6.30.2, "At any time, the system firmware/software is
> permitted to set the DOE Abort bit in the DOE Control Register,
> and the DOE instance must Clear the Data Object Ready bit,
> if not already Clear, and Clear the DOE Error bit, if already Set,
> in the DOE Status Register, within 1 second."
I thought that meant the hardware (the DOE instance) must clear those bits
within 1 second?
>
> No mention of the DOE Interrupt Status bit, so we cannot assume that
> it's cleared by a DOE Abort and we must clear it explicitly.
Oh... yea. Jonathan? We discussed this before and I was convinced it worked
but I think Lukas is correct here.
Should we drop the special case in pci_doe_irq_handler() and just clear the
status always? Or should we wait and clear it is pci_doe_abort_start?
Ira
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lukas
