On 05/05/2011 08:35 PM, Mike Miller wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 01:54:22PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 May 2011 11:37:35 MDT, Matthew Wilcox said:
>>
>>>> This probably needs a comment like
>>>> /* don't care - dummy read just to force write posting to chipset */
>>>> or similar. I'm assuming it's just functioning as a barrier-type flush of some sort?
>>>>
>>> It's a PCI write flush. It's not clear to me why it's needed here,
>>> though. The write will eventually get to the device; why we need to
>>> make the CPU wait around for it to actually get there doesn't make sense.
>>>
>> Exactly why I think it needs a one-liner comment. :)
>>
>>
> So we're not exactly sure why it's needed either. We've had reports of
> commands getting "lost" or "stuck" under some workloads. The extra readl
> works around the issue but certainly may have negative side effects.
>
> I'm not sure I understand how writel works.
>
> From linux-2.6/arch/x86/include/asm/io.h:
>
> #define build_mmio_write(name, size, type, reg, barrier) \
> static inline void name(type val, volatile void __iomem *addr) \
> { asm volatile("mov" size " %0,%1": :reg (val), \
> "m" (*(volatile type __force *)addr) barrier); }
>
> This implies (at least to me) that a barrier is part of writel. I don't know
> why a write operation needs a barrier but thats essentially what we've done
> by adding the extra readl. Can someone confirm or deny that a barrier is
> actually built into writel? Or used by writel? If so, does this indicate
> that barrier is broken?
>
> At this point we (the software guys) are pretty much at a loss as to how to
> continue debugging. We don't know what to trigger on for the PCIe analyzer.
> If we track outstanding commands then trigger on one that doesn't complete in
> some amount of time the problem could conceivably be far in the past and
> difficult to correlate to the data in the trace.
>
I'd look at the firmware part, you could check what happens for example when
the firmware gets send a command it doesn't understand.
You could also change the communication with the fw by adding a count field, which can
be then checked for the !(next_value == previous_value + 1) and raise an event.
tomas
> If anyone has any thoughts, suggestions, or flames they would be greatly
> appreciated.
>
> -- mikem
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
