Re: [UNVERIFIED SENDER] Re: [UNVERIFIED SENDER] Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] soc: amazon: al-pos: Introduce Amazon's Annapurna Labs POS driver

[James Morse]

Hi guys,

On 12/09/2019 10:19, Shenhar, Talel wrote:
> On 9/12/2019 11:50 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 07:50:03 +0100,
>> "Shenhar, Talel" <talel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 9/11/2019 5:15 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 20:05:09 +0100,
>>>> Talel Shenhar <talel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> +ÂÂÂ if (!FIELD_GET(AL_POS_ERROR_LOG_1_VALID, log1))
>>>>> +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ return IRQ_NONE;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +ÂÂÂ log0 = readl(pos->mmio_base + AL_POS_ERROR_LOG_0);
>>>>> +ÂÂÂ writel(0, pos->mmio_base + AL_POS_ERROR_LOG_1);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +ÂÂÂ addr = FIELD_GET(AL_POS_ERROR_LOG_0_ADDR_LOW, log0);
>>>>> +ÂÂÂ addr |= (FIELD_GET(AL_POS_ERROR_LOG_1_ADDR_HIGH, log1) << 32);
>>>>> +ÂÂÂ request_id = FIELD_GET(AL_POS_ERROR_LOG_1_REQUEST_ID, log1);
>>>>> +ÂÂÂ bresp = FIELD_GET(AL_POS_ERROR_LOG_1_BRESP, log1);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +ÂÂÂ dev_err(&pdev->dev, "addr=0x%llx request_id=0x%x bresp=0x%x\n",
>>>>> +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ addr, request_id, bresp);

>>>> What is this information? How do we make use of it? Given that this is
>>>> asynchronous, how do we correlate it to the offending software?

>>> Indeed this information arriving from the HW is asynchronous.
>>>
>>> There is no direct method to get the offending software.
>>>
>>> There are all kinds of hacks we do to find the offending software once
>>> we find this error. most of the time its a new patch introduced but
>>> some of the time is just digging.

>> OK, so that the moment, this is more of a debug tool than anything
>> else, right?

> Not sure what do you mean by debug tool. this is used to capture iliigle access and allow
> panic() based on them or simple logging.

Plumbing this into edac as a 'device' gives you the existing/standard interface for
user-space. For example the 'panic_on_ue' that is exposed via sysfs, this saves you having
another interface to toggle it for your driver. You can then use the existing distro tools
to drive/monitor/sample it.


>>>> The whole think looks to me like a poor man's EDAC handling, and I'd
>>>> expect to be plugged in that subsystem instead. Any reason why this
>>>> isn't the case? It would certainly make the handling uniform for the
>>>> user.

>>> This logic was not plugged into EDAC as there is no "Correctable"
>>> error here. its just error event. Not all errors are EDAC in the sense
>>> of Error Detection And *Correction*. There are no correctable errors
>>> for this driver.

>> I'd argue the opposite! Because you obviously don't let a read-only
>> register being written to, the error has been corrected, and you
>> signal the correction status.

> Not the meaning of corrected from my point of view - the system as a whole (sw&hw) are not
> working state. a driver thinks it configured the system to do A while the system doesn't
> really do that. and the critical part is that the driver that did operation A doesn't even
> have a way to know it.
> 
> So I would not call this corrected.

I don't think corrected/uncorrected helps here. If the register is read-only, and software
writes to it, its a software bug.

(from the v8.2's RAS extensions view, its somewhere between unrecoverable and uncontained)


>>> So plugging it under EDAC seems like abusing the EDAC system.

If EDAC doesn't do what you need, it can always be extended.


>>> Now that I've emphasize the reason for not putting this under EDAC,
>>> what do you think? should this "only uncorrectable event" driver
>>> should be part of EDAC?

Sure, (its for memory controllers, but:) enum edac_type has a EDAC_EC: "Error Checking, no
correction". This wouldn't be the only device that only reports uncorrectable errors.


>> My choice would be to plug it into the EDAC subsystem, and report all
>> interrupts as "Corrected" events. Optionally, and only if you are
>> debugging something that requires it, report the error as
>> "Uncorrectable", in which case the EDAC subsystem should trigger a
>> panic.

>> At least you'd get the infrastructure, logging and tooling that the
>> EDAC subsystem offers (parsing the kernel log doesn't really count).

> I see what you say. However, I don't see too much added value in plugging this to EDAC and
> feel like it would abuse EDAC framework.

> James, will love your input from EDAC point of view, does it make sense to plug
> un-correctable only event to EDAC?

I think this device is an example of something like a "Fabric switch units" in
Documentation/driver-api/edac.rst. It makes sense that it should be described as a
'device' to edac. You can then use the existing user-space tools to control/report/monitor
the values.


Thanks,

James