Re: [PATCH 2/3] cxl/mbox: Add GET_POISON_LIST mailbox command support

[Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>]

On Fri, 17 Jun 2022, Alison Schofield wrote:

>On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 07:05:08AM -0700, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 17:10:27 -0700
>> alison.schofield@intel.com wrote:
>>
>> > From: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>
>> >
>> > CXL devices that support persistent memory maintain a list of locations
>> > that are poisoned or result in poison if the addresses are accessed by
>> > the host.
>> >
>> > Per the spec (CXL 2.0 8.2.8.5.4.1), the device returns this Poison
>> > list as a set of  Media Error Records that include the source of the
>> > error, the starting device physical address and length. The length is
>> > the number of adjacent DPAs in the record and is in units of 64 bytes.
>> >
>> > Retrieve the list and log each Media Error Record as a trace event of
>> > type cxl_poison_list.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>
>>
>> A few more things inline.
>>
>> Otherwise, can confirm it works with some hack QEMU code.
>> I'll tidy that up and post soon.
>>
>> > +int cxl_mem_get_poison_list(struct device *dev)
>> > +{
>snip
>> > +
>> > +			trace_cxl_poison_list(dev, source, addr, len);
>>
>> Need to mask off the lower 6 bits of addr as they contain the source
>> + a few reserved bits.
>>
>> I was confused how you were geting better than 64 byte precision in your
>> example.
>>
>Ah...got it. Thanks!
>
>> > +		}
>> > +
>> > +		/* Protect against an uncleared _FLAG_MORE */
>> > +		nr_records = nr_records + le16_to_cpu(po->count);
>> > +		if (nr_records >= cxlds->poison_max)
>> > +			goto out;
>> > +
>> > +	} while (po->flags & CXL_POISON_FLAG_MORE);
>> So.. A conundrum here.  What happens if:
>>
>> 1. We get an error mid way through a set of multiple reads
>>    (something intermittent - maybe a software issue)
>> 2. We will drop out of here fine and report the error.
>> 3. We run this function again.
>>
>> It will (I think) currently pick up where we left off, but we have
>> no way of knowing that as there isn't a 'total records' count or
>> any other form of index in the output payload.
>
>Yes. That is sad. I'm assume it's by design and CXL devices never
>intended to keep any totals.
>
>>
>> So, software solutions I think should work (though may warrant a note
>> to be added to the spec).
>>
>> 1. Read whole thing twice. First time is just to ensure we get
>>    to the end and flush out any prior half done reads.
>> 2. Issue a read for a different region (perhaps length 0) first
>>    and assume everything starts from scratch when we go back to
>>    this region.
>
>Can you tell me more about 2 ?
>
>Also, Since posting this I have added protection to this path to ensure
>only one reader of the poison list for this device. Like this:

I don't think we should prevent multiple list reads. I would expect the
scenario Jonathan describes to be the uncommon case.

Thanks,
Davidlohr

>
>if (!completion_done(&cxlds->read_poison_complete);
>              return -EBUSY;
>wait_for_completion_interruptible(&cxlds->read_poison_complete);
>	...GET ALL THE POISON...
>complete(&cxlds->read_poison_complete);
>
>And will add the error message on that unexpected _FLAG_MORE too.
>
>Alison
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>
>
>
>> > +
>> > +out:
>> > +	kvfree(po);
>> > +	return rc;
>> > +}
>> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(cxl_mem_get_poison_list, CXL);
>> > +
>> >  struct cxl_dev_state *cxl_dev_state_create(struct device *dev)
>> >  {
>> >	struct cxl_dev_state *cxlds;
>>