On Thu, 2018-08-16 at 14:33 +0530, poza@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On 2018-08-16 13:42, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > when I meant spec, i meant PCIe Spec. > At least spec distinguish fatal and non-fatal Yes, I'm well aware of that, however the policy implemented by EEH is stricter in that *any* uncorrectable error will trigger an immediate freeze of the endpoint in order to prevent bad data propagation. However, you don't have to implement it that way for AER. You can implement a policy where you don't enforce a reset of the device and link unless the driver requests it. However if/when the driver does, then you should honor the driver wish and do it which isn't currently the case in the AER code. Note that the current error callbacks have no way to convey the fatal vs. non-fatal information to the device that I can see, we might want to change the prototype here with a tree-wide patch if you think that drivers might care. > Non-fatal errors are uncorrectable errors which cause a particular > transaction to be unreliable but the Link is otherwise fully functional. > Isolating Non-fatal from Fatal errors provides Requester/Receiver logic > in a device or system management software the opportunity to recover > from the error without resetting the components on the Link and > disturbing other transactions in progress. > " > > Here the basic assumption is link is fully functional, hence we do not > initiate link reset. (while in case FATAL we do initiate Secondary Bus > Reset) See above. > > okay, so here is what current pcie_do_nonfatal_recovery() doe. > > pcie_do_nonfatal_recovery > report_error_detected() >> calls driver callbacks > report_mmio_enabled() > report_slot_reset() >> if PCI_ERS_RESULT_NEED_RESET Above if the driver returned "NEED RESET" we should not just "report" a slot reset, we should *perform* one :-) Unless the AER code does it in a place I missed... Also we should do a hot reset at least, not just a link reset. > report_resume() > > If you suggest how it is broken, it will help me to understand. > probably you might want to point out what are the calls need to be added > or removed or differently handled, specially storage point of view. > Regards, > Oza. > > > > > Keep in mind that those callbacks were designed originally for EEH > > (which predates AER), and so was the spec written. > > > > We don't actually use the AER code on POWER today, so we didn't notice > > how broken the implementation was :-) > > > > We should fix that. > > > > Either we can sort all that out by email, or we should plan some kind > > of catch-up, either at Plumbers (provided I can go there) or maybe a > > webex call. > > > > Cheers, > > Ben.
