[PATCH 14/14] powerpc/eeh: Move PE tree setup into the platform
Alexey Kardashevskiy
aik at ozlabs.ru
Tue Jul 14 11:50:39 AEST 2020
On 06/07/2020 11:36, Oliver O'Halloran wrote:
> The EEH core has a concept of a "PE tree" to support PowerNV. The PE tree
> follows the PCI bus structures because a reset asserted on an upstream
> bridge will be propagated to the downstream bridges. On pseries there's a
> 1-1 correspondence between what the guest sees are a PHB and a PE so the
> "tree" is really just a single node.
>
> Current the EEH core is reponsible for setting up this PE tree which it
> does by traversing the pci_dn tree. The structure of the pci_dn tree
> matches the bus tree on PowerNV which leads to the PE tree being "correct"
> this setup method doesn't make a whole lot of sense and it's actively
> confusing for the pseries case where it doesn't really do anything.
>
> We want to remove the dependence on pci_dn anyway so this patch move
> choosing where to insert a new PE into the platform code rather than
> being part of the generic EEH code. For PowerNV this simplifies the
> tree building logic and removes the use of pci_dn. For pseries we
> keep the existing logic. I'm not really convinced it does anything
> due to the 1-1 PE-to-PHB correspondence so every device under that
> PHB should be in the same PE, but I'd rather not remove it entirely
> until we've had a chance to look at it more deeply.
>
> Signed-off-by: Oliver O'Halloran <oohall at gmail.com>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/eeh.h | 2 +-
> arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh_pe.c | 70 ++++++--------------
> arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-powernv.c | 27 +++++++-
> arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_pseries.c | 59 +++++++++++++++--
> 4 files changed, 101 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/eeh.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/eeh.h
> index 8d34e5b790c2..1cab629dbc74 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/eeh.h
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/eeh.h
> @@ -283,7 +283,7 @@ struct eeh_pe *eeh_phb_pe_get(struct pci_controller *phb);
> struct eeh_pe *eeh_pe_next(struct eeh_pe *pe, struct eeh_pe *root);
> struct eeh_pe *eeh_pe_get(struct pci_controller *phb,
> int pe_no, int config_addr);
> -int eeh_pe_tree_insert(struct eeh_dev *edev);
> +int eeh_pe_tree_insert(struct eeh_dev *edev, struct eeh_pe *new_pe_parent);
> int eeh_pe_tree_remove(struct eeh_dev *edev);
> void eeh_pe_update_time_stamp(struct eeh_pe *pe);
> void *eeh_pe_traverse(struct eeh_pe *root,
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh_pe.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh_pe.c
> index 898205829a8f..ea2f8b362d18 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh_pe.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh_pe.c
> @@ -318,53 +318,20 @@ struct eeh_pe *eeh_pe_get(struct pci_controller *phb,
> return pe;
> }
>
> -/**
> - * eeh_pe_get_parent - Retrieve the parent PE
> - * @edev: EEH device
> - *
> - * The whole PEs existing in the system are organized as hierarchy
> - * tree. The function is used to retrieve the parent PE according
> - * to the parent EEH device.
> - */
> -static struct eeh_pe *eeh_pe_get_parent(struct eeh_dev *edev)
> -{
> - struct eeh_dev *parent;
> - struct pci_dn *pdn = eeh_dev_to_pdn(edev);
> -
> - /*
> - * It might have the case for the indirect parent
> - * EEH device already having associated PE, but
> - * the direct parent EEH device doesn't have yet.
> - */
> - if (edev->physfn)
> - pdn = pci_get_pdn(edev->physfn);
> - else
> - pdn = pdn ? pdn->parent : NULL;
> - while (pdn) {
> - /* We're poking out of PCI territory */
> - parent = pdn_to_eeh_dev(pdn);
> - if (!parent)
> - return NULL;
> -
> - if (parent->pe)
> - return parent->pe;
> -
> - pdn = pdn->parent;
> - }
> -
> - return NULL;
> -}
> -
> /**
> * eeh_pe_tree_insert - Add EEH device to parent PE
> * @edev: EEH device
> + * @new_pe_parent: PE to create additional PEs under
> *
> - * Add EEH device to the parent PE. If the parent PE already
> - * exists, the PE type will be changed to EEH_PE_BUS. Otherwise,
> - * we have to create new PE to hold the EEH device and the new
> - * PE will be linked to its parent PE as well.
> + * Add EEH device to the PE in edev->pe_config_addr. If a PE already
> + * exists with that address then @edev is added to that PE. Otherwise
> + * a new PE is created and inserted into the PE tree as a child of
> + * @new_pe_parent.
> + *
> + * If @new_pe_parent is NULL then the new PE will be inserted under
> + * directly under the the PHB.
> */
> -int eeh_pe_tree_insert(struct eeh_dev *edev)
> +int eeh_pe_tree_insert(struct eeh_dev *edev, struct eeh_pe *new_pe_parent)
> {
> struct pci_controller *hose = edev->controller;
> struct eeh_pe *pe, *parent;
We can ditch this "parent" in that single place now and use "pe"
instead. And name the new parameter simply "parent". Dunno if it
improves things though.
> @@ -399,7 +366,7 @@ int eeh_pe_tree_insert(struct eeh_dev *edev)
> }
>
> eeh_edev_dbg(edev,
> - "Added to device PE (parent: PE#%x)\n",
> + "Added to existing PE (parent: PE#%x)\n",
> pe->parent->addr);
> } else {
> /* Mark the PE as type of PCI bus */
> @@ -431,10 +398,9 @@ int eeh_pe_tree_insert(struct eeh_dev *edev)
> * to PHB directly. Otherwise, we have to associate the
> * PE with its parent.
> */
> - parent = eeh_pe_get_parent(edev);
> - if (!parent) {
> - parent = eeh_phb_pe_get(hose);
> - if (!parent) {
> + if (!new_pe_parent) {
> + new_pe_parent = eeh_phb_pe_get(hose);
> + if (!new_pe_parent) {
afaict only pseries can realisticly pass new_pe_parent==NULL so this
chunk could go to pseries_eeh_pe_get_parent.
> pr_err("%s: No PHB PE is found (PHB Domain=%d)\n",
> __func__, hose->global_number);
> edev->pe = NULL;
> @@ -442,17 +408,19 @@ int eeh_pe_tree_insert(struct eeh_dev *edev)
> return -EEXIST;
> }
> }
> - pe->parent = parent;
> +
> + /* link new PE into the tree */
> + pe->parent = new_pe_parent;
> + list_add_tail(&pe->child, &new_pe_parent->child_list);
>
> /*
> * Put the newly created PE into the child list and
> * link the EEH device accordingly.
> */
> - list_add_tail(&pe->child, &parent->child_list);
> list_add_tail(&edev->entry, &pe->edevs);
> edev->pe = pe;
> - eeh_edev_dbg(edev, "Added to device PE (parent: PE#%x)\n",
> - pe->parent->addr);
> + eeh_edev_dbg(edev, "Added to new (parent: PE#%x)\n",
> + new_pe_parent->addr);
>
> return 0;
> }
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-powernv.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-powernv.c
> index 8c9fca773692..9af8c3b98853 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-powernv.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-powernv.c
> @@ -338,6 +338,28 @@ static int pnv_eeh_find_ecap(struct pci_dn *pdn, int cap)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static struct eeh_pe *pnv_eeh_get_upstream_pe(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> +{
> + struct pci_controller *hose = pdev->bus->sysdata;
> + struct pnv_phb *phb = hose->private_data;
> + struct pci_dev *parent = pdev->bus->self;
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PCI_IOV
> + /* for VFs we use the PF's PE as the upstream PE */
> + if (pdev->is_virtfn)
> + parent = pdev->physfn;
> +#endif
> +
> + /* otherwise use the PE of our parent bridge */
> + if (parent) {
> + struct pnv_ioda_pe *ioda_pe = pnv_ioda_get_pe(parent);
> +
> + return eeh_pe_get(phb->hose, ioda_pe->pe_number, 0);
> + }
> +
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> /**
> * pnv_eeh_probe - Do probe on PCI device
> * @pdev: pci_dev to probe
> @@ -350,6 +372,7 @@ static struct eeh_dev *pnv_eeh_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> struct pci_controller *hose = pdn->phb;
> struct pnv_phb *phb = hose->private_data;
> struct eeh_dev *edev = pdn_to_eeh_dev(pdn);
> + struct eeh_pe *upstream_pe;
> uint32_t pcie_flags;
> int ret;
> int config_addr = (pdn->busno << 8) | (pdn->devfn);
> @@ -398,8 +421,10 @@ static struct eeh_dev *pnv_eeh_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>
> edev->pe_config_addr = phb->ioda.pe_rmap[config_addr];
>
> + upstream_pe = pnv_eeh_get_upstream_pe(pdev);
> +
> /* Create PE */
> - ret = eeh_pe_tree_insert(edev);
> + ret = eeh_pe_tree_insert(edev, upstream_pe);
> if (ret) {
> eeh_edev_warn(edev, "Failed to add device to PE (code %d)\n", ret);
> return NULL;
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_pseries.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_pseries.c
> index 72556f4436a8..98f9a1b269be 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_pseries.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_pseries.c
> @@ -68,11 +68,16 @@ void pseries_pcibios_bus_add_device(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> pseries_eeh_init_edev(pdn);
> #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_IOV
> if (pdev->is_virtfn) {
> + /*
> + * FIXME: This really should be handled by choosing the right
> + * parent PE in in pseries_eeh_init_edev().
> + */
> + struct eeh_pe *physfn_pe = pci_dev_to_eeh_dev(pdev->physfn)->pe;
> struct eeh_dev *edev = pdn_to_eeh_dev(pdn);
>
> edev->pe_config_addr = (pdn->busno << 16) | (pdn->devfn << 8);
> eeh_pe_tree_remove(edev); /* Remove as it is adding to bus pe */
> - eeh_pe_tree_insert(edev); /* Add as VF PE type */
> + eeh_pe_tree_insert(edev, physfn_pe); /* Add as VF PE type */
> }
> #endif
> eeh_probe_device(pdev);
> @@ -218,6 +223,43 @@ static int pseries_eeh_find_ecap(struct pci_dn *pdn, int cap)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +/**
> + * pseries_eeh_pe_get_parent - Retrieve the parent PE
> + * @edev: EEH device
> + *
> + * The whole PEs existing in the system are organized as hierarchy
> + * tree. The function is used to retrieve the parent PE according
> + * to the parent EEH device.
> + */
> +static struct eeh_pe *pseries_eeh_pe_get_parent(struct eeh_dev *edev)
> +{
> + struct eeh_dev *parent;
> + struct pci_dn *pdn = eeh_dev_to_pdn(edev);
> +
> + /*
> + * It might have the case for the indirect parent
> + * EEH device already having associated PE, but
> + * the direct parent EEH device doesn't have yet.
> + */
> + if (edev->physfn)
> + pdn = pci_get_pdn(edev->physfn);
> + else
> + pdn = pdn ? pdn->parent : NULL;
> + while (pdn) {
> + /* We're poking out of PCI territory */
We are traversing up PCI hierarchy here - pci_dn->parent, how is this
out of PCI territory? Or I understand "out of" incorrectly?
> + parent = pdn_to_eeh_dev(pdn);
> + if (!parent)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + if (parent->pe)
> + return parent->pe;
> +
> + pdn = pdn->parent;
> + }
> +
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> /**
> * pseries_eeh_init_edev - initialise the eeh_dev and eeh_pe for a pci_dn
> *
> @@ -301,6 +343,8 @@ void pseries_eeh_init_edev(struct pci_dn *pdn)
> if (ret) {
> eeh_edev_dbg(edev, "EEH failed to enable on device (code %d)\n", ret);
> } else {
> + struct eeh_pe *parent;
> +
> /* Retrieve PE address */
> edev->pe_config_addr = pseries_eeh_get_pe_addr(pdn);
> pe.addr = edev->pe_config_addr;
> @@ -313,16 +357,23 @@ void pseries_eeh_init_edev(struct pci_dn *pdn)
> if (ret > 0 && ret != EEH_STATE_NOT_SUPPORT)
> enable = 1;
>
> - if (enable) {
> + /* This device doesn't support EEH, but it may have an
> + * EEH parent, in which case we mark it as supported.
> + */
> + parent = pseries_eeh_pe_get_parent(edev);
> + if (parent && !enable)
> + edev->pe_config_addr = parent->addr;
What if pseries_eeh_pe_get_parent() returned NULL - we won't write
edev->pe_config_addr so it remains 0 which is fine just by accident? :)
I'd make pseries_eeh_pe_get_parent() always return not NULL (a parent or
a hose) and simplify the block below.
I mean the change is alright but part of the excersise is making the
code more readable but there also can go forever :) so
Reviewed-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik at ozlabs.ru>
> +
> + if (enable || parent) {
> eeh_add_flag(EEH_ENABLED);
> - eeh_pe_tree_insert(edev);
> + eeh_pe_tree_insert(edev, parent);
> } else if (pdn->parent && pdn_to_eeh_dev(pdn->parent) &&
> (pdn_to_eeh_dev(pdn->parent))->pe) {
> /* This device doesn't support EEH, but it may have an
> * EEH parent, in which case we mark it as supported.
> */
> edev->pe_config_addr = pdn_to_eeh_dev(pdn->parent)->pe_config_addr;
> - eeh_pe_tree_insert(edev);
> + eeh_pe_tree_insert(edev, parent);
> }
> eeh_edev_dbg(edev, "EEH is %s on device (code %d)\n",
> (enable ? "enabled" : "unsupported"), ret);
>
--
Alexey
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list