From: "Spassov, Stanislav" <stanspas@amazon.de>
To: "helgaas@kernel.org" <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc: "corbet@lwn.net" <corbet@lwn.net>,
"alex.williamson@redhat.com" <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
"ashok.raj@intel.com" <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
"okaya@kernel.org" <okaya@kernel.org>,
"tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Schönherr, Jan H." <jschoenh@amazon.de>,
"rajatja@google.com" <rajatja@google.com>,
"linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
"bhelgaas@google.com" <bhelgaas@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] PCI: Add CRS handling to pci_dev_wait()
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 18:04:05 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9cae764f00c5969c364728ed031c29ce49c03480.camel@amazon.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210913163847.GA1335093@bjorn-Precision-5520>
On Mon, 2021-09-13 at 11:38 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 04:29:51PM +0000, Spassov, Stanislav wrote:
> > On Sat, 2021-09-11 at 09:03 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >
> > I later understood the specific CPU did have a proprietary register for
> > "limiting the number of loops" that the PCIe spec talks about, and indeed
> > that register was set to "no limit". Coupled with the stuck device, these
> > indefinite retries eventually triggered TOR timeout.
>
> "No limit" sounds like a pretty bad choice, given that it means the
> CPU will essentially hang forever because of a defective I/O device.
> There should be a timeout so software can recover (the *device* may
> never recover, but that's no reason why the kernel must crash).
>
Correct. "No limit" is definitely a bad choice for that register,
and fixing the value would be preferable to any software solution.
Unfortunately, at least in the case I worked on, that register was
not accessible by the kernel. Intel exposes many CPU configuration
registers in terms of virtual PCI devices residing directly on Root
Buses, and the system/platform firmware is able to use vendor-provided
means to completely hide some of these pseudo-devices from the OS.
Additionally, the way the PCIe spec is phrased, not every Root Complex
implementation is required to even have such a limiting register, while
all implementations that advertise CRS SV capability are required to
behave as prescribed when PCI_VENDOR_ID is read. Hence why I believe
this patch is a general robustness improvement, rather than a workaround
for a specific device/platform.
Amazon Development Center Germany GmbH
Krausenstr. 38
10117 Berlin
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Christian Schlaeger, Jonathan Weiss
Eingetragen am Amtsgericht Charlottenburg unter HRB 149173 B
Sitz: Berlin
Ust-ID: DE 289 237 879
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-13 18:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-07 17:20 [PATCH v4 0/3] Improve PCI device post-reset readiness polling Stanislav Spassov
2020-03-07 17:20 ` [PATCH v4 1/3] PCI: Refactor polling loop out of pci_dev_wait Stanislav Spassov
2020-03-07 17:20 ` [PATCH v4 2/3] PCI: Cache CRS Software Visibiliy in struct pci_dev Stanislav Spassov
2021-09-12 13:32 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-09-13 16:06 ` Spassov, Stanislav
2020-03-07 17:20 ` [PATCH v4 3/3] PCI: Add CRS handling to pci_dev_wait() Stanislav Spassov
2020-03-09 15:55 ` Sinan Kaya
2020-03-09 16:19 ` Raj, Ashok
2020-03-09 16:38 ` Spassov, Stanislav
2020-03-09 17:33 ` Sinan Kaya
2021-09-11 14:03 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-09-13 16:29 ` Spassov, Stanislav
2021-09-13 16:38 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-09-13 18:04 ` Spassov, Stanislav [this message]
2021-09-14 17:53 ` Rajat Jain
2021-09-13 16:07 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-09-13 16:39 ` Spassov, Stanislav
2021-01-22 8:54 ` [PATCH v4 0/3] Improve PCI device post-reset readiness polling David Woodhouse
2021-09-10 9:32 ` David Woodhouse
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=9cae764f00c5969c364728ed031c29ce49c03480.camel@amazon.de \
--to=stanspas@amazon.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=ashok.raj@intel.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=jschoenh@amazon.de \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=okaya@kernel.org \
--cc=rajatja@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).