[PATCH v4 22/23] PCI/AER: Forward RCH downstream port-detected errors to the CXL.mem dev handler

Bjorn Helgaas helgaas at kernel.org
Fri May 26 08:01:01 AEST 2023

On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 11:29:58PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> eOn 24.05.23 16:32:35, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 06:22:13PM -0500, Terry Bowman wrote:
> > > From: Robert Richter <rrichter at amd.com>
> > > 
> > > In Restricted CXL Device (RCD) mode a CXL device is exposed as an
> > > RCiEP, but CXL downstream and upstream ports are not enumerated and
> > > not visible in the PCIe hierarchy. Protocol and link errors are sent
> > > to an RCEC.
> > >
> > > Restricted CXL host (RCH) downstream port-detected errors are signaled
> > > as internal AER errors, either Uncorrectable Internal Error (UIE) or
> > > Corrected Internal Errors (CIE). 
> > 
> > From the parallelism with RCD above, I first thought that RCH devices
> > were non-RCD mode and *were* enumerated as part of the PCIe hierarchy,
> > but actually I suspect it's more like the following?
> > 
> >   ... but CXL downstream and upstream ports are not enumerated and not
> >   visible in the PCIe hierarchy.
> > 
> >   Protocol and link errors from these non-enumerated ports are
> >   signaled as internal AER errors ... via a CXL RCEC.
> Exactly, except the RCEC is standard PCIe and also must not
> necessarily on the same PCI bus as the CXL RCiEPs are.

So make it "RCEC" instead of "CXL RCEC", I guess?  PCIe r6.0, sec, allows an RCEC to be associated with RCiEPs on different
buses, so nothing to see there.

> > > The error source is the id of the RCEC.
> > 
> > This seems odd; I assume this refers to the RCEC's AER Error Source
> > Identification register, and the ERR_COR or ERR_FATAL/NONFATAL Source
> > Identification would ordinarily be the Requester ID of the RCiEP that
> > "sent" the Error Message.  But you're saying it's actually the ID of
> > the *RCEC*, not the RCiEP?
> Right, the downstream port has its own AER ext capability in
> non-config (io mapped) RCRB register range. Errors originating from
> there are signaled as internal AER errors via the RCEC *with* the
> RCEC's Requester ID. Code walks through all associated CXL endpoints,
> determines the dport and checks its AER.
> There is also an RDPAS structure defined in CXL but that is only a
> different way to provide the RCEC to dport association instead of
> using the RCEC's Endpoint Association Extended Capability. In the end
> we get all associated RCHs and check the AER of all their dports.
> The upstream port is signaled using the RCiEP's AER. CXL spec is
> strict here: "Upstream Port RCRB shall not implement the AER Extended
> Capability." The RCiEP's requestor ID is used then and its config
> space the AER is in.
> CXL.cachemem errors are reported with the RCiEP as requester
> too. Status is in the CXL RAS cap and the UIE or CIE is set
> respectively in the AER status of the RCiEP.
> > We're going to call pci_aer_handle_error() as well, to handle the
> > non-internal errors, and I'm pretty sure that path expects the RCiEP
> > ID there.
> > 
> > Whatever the answer, I'm not sure this sentence is actually relevant
> > to this patch, since this patch doesn't read PCI_ERR_ROOT_ERR_SRC or
> > look at struct aer_err_source.id.
> The source id is used in aer_process_err_devices() which finally calls
> handle_error_source() for the device with the requestor id. This is
> the place where cxl_rch_handle_error() checks if it is an RCEC that
> received an internal error and has cxl devices connected to it. Then,
> the request is forwarded to the cxl_mem handler which also needs to
> check the dport now. That is, pcie_walk_rcec() in
> cxl_rch_handle_error() is called with the RCEC's pci handle,
> cxl_rch_handle_error_iter() with the RCiEP's pci handle.

I'm still not sure this is relevant.  Isn't that last sentence just
the way we always use pcie_walk_rcec()?

If there's something *different* here about CXL, and it's important to
this patch, sure.  But I don't see that yet.  Maybe a comment in the
code if you think it's important to clarify something there.


More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list