Re: [PATCH v12 23/25] CXL/PCI: Introduce CXL uncorrectable protocol error recovery

[Dave Jiang]

On 10/1/25 6:58 AM, Bowman, Terry wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/30/2025 11:46 AM, Dave Jiang wrote:
>>
>> On 9/30/25 9:43 AM, Bowman, Terry wrote:
>>>
>>> On 9/30/2025 11:13 AM, Dave Jiang wrote:
>>>> On 9/30/25 7:38 AM, Bowman, Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 9/29/2025 7:26 PM, Dave Jiang wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/25/25 3:34 PM, Terry Bowman wrote:
>>>>>>> Populate the cxl_do_recovery() function with uncorrectable protocol error (UCE)
>>>>>>> handling. Follow similar design as found in PCIe error driver,
>>>>>>> pcie_do_recovery(). One difference is cxl_do_recovery() will treat all UCEs
>>>>>>> as fatal with a kernel panic. This is to prevent corruption on CXL memory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Introduce cxl_walk_port(). Make this analogous to pci_walk_bridge() but walking
>>>>>>> CXL ports instead. This will iterate through the CXL topology from the
>>>>>>> erroring device through the downstream CXL Ports and Endpoints.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Export pci_aer_clear_fatal_status() for CXL to use if a UCE is not found.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Terry Bowman <terry.bowman@xxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Changes in v11->v12:
>>>>>>> - Cleaned up port discovery in cxl_do_recovery() (Dave)
>>>>>>> - Added PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_END to type check in cxl_report_error_detected()
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Changes in v10->v11:
>>>>>>> - pci_ers_merge_results() - Move to earlier patch
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>  drivers/cxl/core/ras.c | 111 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>  1 file changed, 111 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/core/ras.c b/drivers/cxl/core/ras.c
>>>>>>> index 7e8d63c32d72..45f92defca64 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/cxl/core/ras.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/cxl/core/ras.c
>>>>>>> @@ -443,8 +443,119 @@ void cxl_endpoint_port_init_ras(struct cxl_port *ep)
>>>>>>>  }
>>>>>>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(cxl_endpoint_port_init_ras, "CXL");
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> +static int cxl_report_error_detected(struct device *dev, void *data)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> +	struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
>>>>>>> +	pci_ers_result_t vote, *result = data;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +	guard(device)(dev);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +	if ((pci_pcie_type(pdev) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_ENDPOINT) ||
>>>>>>> +	    (pci_pcie_type(pdev) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_END)) {
>>>>>>> +		if (!cxl_pci_drv_bound(pdev))
>>>>>>> +			return 0;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +		vote = cxl_error_detected(dev);
>>>>>>> +	} else {
>>>>>>> +		vote = cxl_port_error_detected(dev);
>>>>>>> +	}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +	*result = pci_ers_merge_result(*result, vote);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +	return 0;
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +static int match_port_by_parent_dport(struct device *dev, const void *dport_dev)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> +	struct cxl_port *port;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +	if (!is_cxl_port(dev))
>>>>>>> +		return 0;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +	port = to_cxl_port(dev);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +	return port->parent_dport->dport_dev == dport_dev;
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +static void cxl_walk_port(struct device *port_dev,
>>>>>>> +			  int (*cb)(struct device *, void *),
>>>>>>> +			  void *userdata)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> +	struct cxl_dport *dport = NULL;
>>>>>>> +	struct cxl_port *port;
>>>>>>> +	unsigned long index;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +	if (!port_dev)
>>>>>>> +		return;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +	port = to_cxl_port(port_dev);
>>>>>>> +	if (port->uport_dev && dev_is_pci(port->uport_dev))
>>>>>>> +		cb(port->uport_dev, userdata);
>>>>>> Could use some comments on what is being walked. Also an explanation of what is happening here would be good.
>>>>> Ok
>>>>>> If this is an endpoint port, this would be the PCI endpoint device.
>>>>>> If it's a switch port, then this is the upstream port.
>>>>>> If it's a root port, this is skipped.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +	xa_for_each(&port->dports, index, dport)
>>>>>>> +	{
>>>>>>> +		struct device *child_port_dev __free(put_device) =
>>>>>>> +			bus_find_device(&cxl_bus_type, &port->dev, dport->dport_dev,
>>>>>>> +					match_port_by_parent_dport);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +		cb(dport->dport_dev, userdata);
>>>>>> This is going through all the downstream ports
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +		cxl_walk_port(child_port_dev, cxl_report_error_detected, userdata);
>>>>>>> +	}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +	if (is_cxl_endpoint(port))
>>>>>>> +		cb(port->uport_dev->parent, userdata);
>>>>>> And this is the downstream parent port of the endpoint device
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why not move this before the xa_for_each() and return early? endpoint ports don't have dports, no need to even try to run that block above.
>>>>> Sure, I'll change that.
>>>>>> So in the current implementation,
>>>>>> 1. Endpoint. It checks the device, and then it checks the downstream parent port for errors. Is checking the parent dport necessary?
>>>>>> 2. Switch. It checks the upstream port, then it checks all the downstream ports for errors.
>>>>>> 3. Root port. It checks all the downstream ports for errors.
>>>>>> Is this the correct understanding of what this function does?
>>>>> Yes. The ordering is different as you pointed out. I can move the endpoint 
>>>>> check earlier with an early return. 
>>>> As the endpoint, what is the reason the check the parent dport? Pardon my ignorance.
>>> There is none. An endpoint port will not have downstream ports.
>> parent dport. It would be the root port or the switch downstream port. This is what the current code is doing:
>>
>>>>>>> +	if (is_cxl_endpoint(port))
>>>>>>> +		cb(port->uport_dev->parent, userdata);
>> DJ
>>
>>   
> 
> Yes. I need to change port->uport_dev->parent to be port->uport_dev. Thanks. Terry

I believe your first chunk already covered the endpoint device:
>>>>>>> +	if (port->uport_dev && dev_is_pci(port->uport_dev))
>>>>>>> +		cb(port->uport_dev, userdata);

So you can probably just drop the last chunk entirely.