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

[Bowman, Terry]

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