On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:32:40 +0800
"Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> Non-fatal error on I/O device:
> >>> - kill the domain with error source function.
> >>> - reset the function.
> >>
> >>> From following staement in PCI-E 2.0 section 6.6.2: "Note that Port
> >> state machines associated with Link functionality including those
> >> in the Physical and Data Link Layers are not reset by FLR", I'm not
> >> sure if FLR is a right method to handle the error situation. That's
> >> the reason I asked on how to handle multiple-function devices.
> >
> > I think Non-fatal error is transaction's error and it does not require
> > to reset lower layer. But I am not sure.
>
> By default, the data link layer's error is fatal, but the result
> depends on how driver setup it. We can trap the access to AER
> register, and make sure data link layer error always report as
> fatal. That is easy to implement.
It means non-fatal error is transaction layer's error, with default
setting. When non-fatal error occurs on I/O device, FLR seems to
recover it.
> >
> >>> Non-fatal error on PCI-PCI bridge.
> >>> - kill all domains with the functions under the PCI-PCI bridge.
> >>> - reset PCI-PCI bridge and secondary bus.
> >>>
> >>> Fatal error:
> >>> - kill all domains with the functions under the same root port.
> >>> - reset the link (secondary bus reset on root port).
> >>
> >> Agree. Basically I think the action of "reset PCI-PCI bridge and
> >> secondary bus" or "reset the link" has been done by AER core
> >> already. What we need define is PCI back's error handler. In first
> >> step, the error handler will trigger domain reset, in future, more
> >> elegant action can be defined/implemented, Any idea?
> >
> > I agree with you basically.
> >
> > Current AER core does not reset PCI-PCI bridge and secondary bus,
> > when Non-fatal error occurs on PCI-PCI bridge. We need to implement
> > resetting PCI-PCI bridge and secondary bus.
>
> I'd keep the AER core as current-is unless some special reason. For
> example, why should we kill all domains under same root port and
> reset root port's secondary link? Currently it will do so only if
> the impacted device has no aer service register.
On linux 2.6.27, there is aer driver which bind to root port. But
there is no aer driver for other device. So When fatal error occurs,
linux resets root port's secondary link.
drivers/pci/pcie/aer/aerdrv.c:aer_root_reset
> Also not sure if we need reset the link for non-fatal error if AER
> core does not do that. Are there any special difference between
> virtualization/native situation?
No. There is no difference.
I agree with you to keep the AER core as current-is.
> >>> Note: we have to consider to prevent device from destroying other domain's
> >>> memory.
> >>
> >> Why should we consider destroy other domain's memory? I think VT-d
> >> should gurantee this.
> >
> > The device is re-assigned to dom0 on destroying HVM domain. If we
> > destroy domain before resetting the device, I/O device can write
> > memory of dom0. On the other hand, we have to stop guest software
> > before resetting the device to prevent guest software from accessing device.
>
> That should same to normal VT-d situation. We need FLR before we
> re-assign device to dom0 (If current not working like this, it
> should be a bug). Also, to stop guest software before resetting the
> device maybe helpful, but maybe not so important. Do you think
> guest's second access will cause host impacted? After all, even on
> native environment this is guranted unless platform support it. (It
> is said PPC has such support).
>
> BTW, you stated "We have to solve many difficulties to keep guest
> domain running", can you give some detail difficulties (it maybe
> difficult to HVM, but not sure for PV side)?
- HVM
* Implementing root port emulator in ioemu.
* Implementing memory mapped configuration access mechanism
for guest os.
* Enhancing guest aml to allow guest os to handle aer.
* Mapping host error to guest error.
* Interaction between ioemu and pci back driver.
* Handling when guest does not work fine.
- PV
* Notifying pciback to pcifront.
* Handling when guest does not work fine.
> > By the way, do you have any plan to implement these function?
> > I can provide the idea. But I can't provide the code.
>
> Yes, we try to work on it. But we may have not enough environment to
> test all types of error. Also although the AER code can be
> backported easily, some required ACPI fix is more challenge.
I'm not sure backporting is good. In the long term, dom0 linux will be
based on newer linux. How/When developers(we) can switch it to newer
one? I'd like other developer's comment.
Thanks,
--
Yuji Shimada
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home