| Message ID | 20170419073927.29224-2-ruscur@russell.cc (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | c0b64978f09195e00d6649ca0ad0242a80e6e99a |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 05:39:27PM +1000, Russell Currey wrote: >Remove unnecessary tags in eeh_handle_normal_event(), and add function >comments for eeh_handle_normal_event() and eeh_handle_special_event(). > >The only functional difference is that in the case of a PE reaching the >maximum number of failures, rather than one message telling you of this >and suggesting you reseat the device, there are two separate messages. > >Suggested-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> >Signed-off-by: Russell Currey <ruscur@russell.cc> >--- >V3: new. Thanks to Alexey for the suggestions. >--- > arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh_driver.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > >diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh_driver.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh_driver.c >index e50d1470714f..c405c79e50cd 100644 >--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh_driver.c >+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh_driver.c >@@ -724,6 +724,15 @@ static int eeh_reset_device(struct eeh_pe *pe, struct pci_bus *bus, > */ > #define MAX_WAIT_FOR_RECOVERY 300 > >+/** >+ * eeh_handle_normal_event - Handle EEH events on a specific PE >+ * @pe: EEH PE >+ * >+ * Attempts to recover the given PE. If recovery fails or the PE has failed >+ * too many times, remove the PE. >+ * >+ * Returns true if @pe should no longer be used, else false. >+ */ I think this bit of comments would be part of PATCH[1/2]? Also, the comments needn't to be in any document as it's static one. I guess you might not want it to show in stable branches as PATCH[1/2] has been tagged as stable. It's fine if that's the case. > static bool eeh_handle_normal_event(struct eeh_pe *pe) > { > struct pci_bus *frozen_bus; >@@ -741,8 +750,13 @@ static bool eeh_handle_normal_event(struct eeh_pe *pe) > > eeh_pe_update_time_stamp(pe); > pe->freeze_count++; >- if (pe->freeze_count > eeh_max_freezes) >- goto excess_failures; >+ if (pe->freeze_count > eeh_max_freezes) { >+ pr_err("EEH: PHB#%x-PE#%x has failed %d times in the\n" >+ "last hour and has been permanently disabled.\n", >+ pe->phb->global_number, pe->addr, >+ pe->freeze_count); >+ goto hard_fail; >+ } > pr_warn("EEH: This PCI device has failed %d times in the last hour\n", > pe->freeze_count); > >@@ -872,25 +886,16 @@ static bool eeh_handle_normal_event(struct eeh_pe *pe) > > return false; > >-excess_failures: >+hard_fail: > /* > * About 90% of all real-life EEH failures in the field > * are due to poorly seated PCI cards. Only 10% or so are > * due to actual, failed cards. > */ This bit of comments apply to "excess_failures" only, so it would be moved together with the pr_err(). Frankly speaking, I don't see the benebit of the cleanup. "excess_failure" in the original code indicates the case (excessive failures) explicitly, which is nice. However, it's not a big deal. >- pr_err("EEH: PHB#%x-PE#%x has failed %d times in the\n" >- "last hour and has been permanently disabled.\n" >- "Please try reseating or replacing it.\n", >- pe->phb->global_number, pe->addr, >- pe->freeze_count); >- goto perm_error; >- >-hard_fail: > pr_err("EEH: Unable to recover from failure from PHB#%x-PE#%x.\n" > "Please try reseating or replacing it\n", > pe->phb->global_number, pe->addr); > >-perm_error: We will have the message from above pr_err() for "perm_error" case, but we don't have that in original code. > eeh_slot_error_detail(pe, EEH_LOG_PERM); > > /* Notify all devices that they're about to go down. */ >@@ -923,6 +928,13 @@ static bool eeh_handle_normal_event(struct eeh_pe *pe) > return false; > } > >+/** >+ * eeh_handle_special_event - Handle EEH events without a specific failing PE >+ * >+ * Called when an EEH event is detected but can't be narrowed down to a >+ * specific PE. Iterates through possible failures and handles them as >+ * necessary. >+ */ > static void eeh_handle_special_event(void) > { > struct eeh_pe *pe, *phb_pe; Thanks, Gavin
On 19/04/17 17:39, Russell Currey wrote: > Remove unnecessary tags in eeh_handle_normal_event(), and add function > comments for eeh_handle_normal_event() and eeh_handle_special_event(). > > The only functional difference is that in the case of a PE reaching the > maximum number of failures, rather than one message telling you of this > and suggesting you reseat the device, there are two separate messages. > > Suggested-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> > Signed-off-by: Russell Currey <ruscur@russell.cc> Reviewed-by: Andrew Donnellan <andrew.donnellan@au1.ibm.com>
On Thu, 2017-04-20 at 09:48 +1000, Gavin Shan wrote: > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 05:39:27PM +1000, Russell Currey wrote: > > Remove unnecessary tags in eeh_handle_normal_event(), and add function > > comments for eeh_handle_normal_event() and eeh_handle_special_event(). > > > > The only functional difference is that in the case of a PE reaching the > > maximum number of failures, rather than one message telling you of this > > and suggesting you reseat the device, there are two separate messages. > > > > Suggested-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> > > Signed-off-by: Russell Currey <ruscur@russell.cc> > > --- > > V3: new. Thanks to Alexey for the suggestions. > > --- > > arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh_driver.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ > > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh_driver.c > > b/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh_driver.c > > index e50d1470714f..c405c79e50cd 100644 > > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh_driver.c > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh_driver.c > > @@ -724,6 +724,15 @@ static int eeh_reset_device(struct eeh_pe *pe, struct > > pci_bus *bus, > > */ > > #define MAX_WAIT_FOR_RECOVERY 300 > > > > +/** > > + * eeh_handle_normal_event - Handle EEH events on a specific PE > > + * @pe: EEH PE > > + * > > + * Attempts to recover the given PE. If recovery fails or the PE has > > failed > > + * too many times, remove the PE. > > + * > > + * Returns true if @pe should no longer be used, else false. > > + */ > > I think this bit of comments would be part of PATCH[1/2]? Also, the > comments needn't to be in any document as it's static one. I guess > you might not want it to show in stable branches as PATCH[1/2] has > been tagged as stable. It's fine if that's the case. Yeah, I asked mpe about this and he said it's easier to get things into stable if they are purely fixes. > > > static bool eeh_handle_normal_event(struct eeh_pe *pe) > > { > > struct pci_bus *frozen_bus; > > @@ -741,8 +750,13 @@ static bool eeh_handle_normal_event(struct eeh_pe *pe) > > > > eeh_pe_update_time_stamp(pe); > > pe->freeze_count++; > > - if (pe->freeze_count > eeh_max_freezes) > > - goto excess_failures; > > + if (pe->freeze_count > eeh_max_freezes) { > > + pr_err("EEH: PHB#%x-PE#%x has failed %d times in the\n" > > + "last hour and has been permanently disabled.\n", > > + pe->phb->global_number, pe->addr, > > + pe->freeze_count); > > + goto hard_fail; > > + } > > pr_warn("EEH: This PCI device has failed %d times in the last hour\n", > > pe->freeze_count); > > > > @@ -872,25 +886,16 @@ static bool eeh_handle_normal_event(struct eeh_pe *pe) > > > > return false; > > > > -excess_failures: > > +hard_fail: > > /* > > * About 90% of all real-life EEH failures in the field > > * are due to poorly seated PCI cards. Only 10% or so are > > * due to actual, failed cards. > > */ > > This bit of comments apply to "excess_failures" only, so it would > be moved together with the pr_err(). Frankly speaking, I don't see > the benebit of the cleanup. "excess_failure" in the original code > indicates the case (excessive failures) explicitly, which is nice. > However, it's not a big deal. It applies to anything mentioning "reseating or replacing", which used to be two print statements but with this patch is only one. > > > - pr_err("EEH: PHB#%x-PE#%x has failed %d times in the\n" > > - "last hour and has been permanently disabled.\n" > > - "Please try reseating or replacing it.\n", > > - pe->phb->global_number, pe->addr, > > - pe->freeze_count); > > - goto perm_error; > > - > > -hard_fail: > > pr_err("EEH: Unable to recover from failure from PHB#%x-PE#%x.\n" > > "Please try reseating or replacing it\n", > > pe->phb->global_number, pe->addr); > > > > -perm_error: > > We will have the message from above pr_err() for "perm_error" case, but > we don't have that in original code. Yes, there's a slight difference here. I chose to print two messages in the excess failures case, one stating that the failure as been hit and then also printing the general permanent failure message. I don't think it makes much of a difference, and it saves a tag. I definitely like only having one goto in the function. Thanks for the review. > > > eeh_slot_error_detail(pe, EEH_LOG_PERM); > > > > /* Notify all devices that they're about to go down. */ > > @@ -923,6 +928,13 @@ static bool eeh_handle_normal_event(struct eeh_pe *pe) > > return false; > > } > > > > +/** > > + * eeh_handle_special_event - Handle EEH events without a specific failing > > PE > > + * > > + * Called when an EEH event is detected but can't be narrowed down to a > > + * specific PE. Iterates through possible failures and handles them as > > + * necessary. > > + */ > > static void eeh_handle_special_event(void) > > { > > struct eeh_pe *pe, *phb_pe; > > Thanks, > Gavin >
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 05:39:27PM +1000, Russell Currey wrote: >Remove unnecessary tags in eeh_handle_normal_event(), and add function >comments for eeh_handle_normal_event() and eeh_handle_special_event(). > >The only functional difference is that in the case of a PE reaching the >maximum number of failures, rather than one message telling you of this >and suggesting you reseat the device, there are two separate messages. > >Suggested-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> >Signed-off-by: Russell Currey <ruscur@russell.cc> Reviewed-by: Gavin Shan <gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:03:57AM +1000, Russell Currey wrote: >On Thu, 2017-04-20 at 09:48 +1000, Gavin Shan wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 05:39:27PM +1000, Russell Currey wrote: >> > Remove unnecessary tags in eeh_handle_normal_event(), and add function >> > comments for eeh_handle_normal_event() and eeh_handle_special_event(). >> > >> > The only functional difference is that in the case of a PE reaching the >> > maximum number of failures, rather than one message telling you of this >> > and suggesting you reseat the device, there are two separate messages. >> > >> > Suggested-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> >> > Signed-off-by: Russell Currey <ruscur@russell.cc> >> > --- >> > V3: new. Thanks to Alexey for the suggestions. >> > --- >> > arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh_driver.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ >> > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh_driver.c >> > b/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh_driver.c >> > index e50d1470714f..c405c79e50cd 100644 >> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh_driver.c >> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh_driver.c >> > @@ -724,6 +724,15 @@ static int eeh_reset_device(struct eeh_pe *pe, struct >> > pci_bus *bus, >> > */ >> > #define MAX_WAIT_FOR_RECOVERY 300 >> > >> > +/** >> > + * eeh_handle_normal_event - Handle EEH events on a specific PE >> > + * @pe: EEH PE >> > + * >> > + * Attempts to recover the given PE. If recovery fails or the PE has >> > failed >> > + * too many times, remove the PE. >> > + * >> > + * Returns true if @pe should no longer be used, else false. >> > + */ >> >> I think this bit of comments would be part of PATCH[1/2]? Also, the >> comments needn't to be in any document as it's static one. I guess >> you might not want it to show in stable branches as PATCH[1/2] has >> been tagged as stable. It's fine if that's the case. > >Yeah, I asked mpe about this and he said it's easier to get things into stable >if they are purely fixes. > >> >> > static bool eeh_handle_normal_event(struct eeh_pe *pe) >> > { >> > struct pci_bus *frozen_bus; >> > @@ -741,8 +750,13 @@ static bool eeh_handle_normal_event(struct eeh_pe *pe) >> > >> > eeh_pe_update_time_stamp(pe); >> > pe->freeze_count++; >> > - if (pe->freeze_count > eeh_max_freezes) >> > - goto excess_failures; >> > + if (pe->freeze_count > eeh_max_freezes) { >> > + pr_err("EEH: PHB#%x-PE#%x has failed %d times in the\n" >> > + "last hour and has been permanently disabled.\n", >> > + pe->phb->global_number, pe->addr, >> > + pe->freeze_count); >> > + goto hard_fail; >> > + } >> > pr_warn("EEH: This PCI device has failed %d times in the last hour\n", >> > pe->freeze_count); >> > >> > @@ -872,25 +886,16 @@ static bool eeh_handle_normal_event(struct eeh_pe *pe) >> > >> > return false; >> > >> > -excess_failures: >> > +hard_fail: >> > /* >> > * About 90% of all real-life EEH failures in the field >> > * are due to poorly seated PCI cards. Only 10% or so are >> > * due to actual, failed cards. >> > */ >> >> This bit of comments apply to "excess_failures" only, so it would >> be moved together with the pr_err(). Frankly speaking, I don't see >> the benebit of the cleanup. "excess_failure" in the original code >> indicates the case (excessive failures) explicitly, which is nice. >> However, it's not a big deal. > >It applies to anything mentioning "reseating or replacing", which used to be two > print statements but with this patch is only one. > >> >> > - pr_err("EEH: PHB#%x-PE#%x has failed %d times in the\n" >> > - "last hour and has been permanently disabled.\n" >> > - "Please try reseating or replacing it.\n", >> > - pe->phb->global_number, pe->addr, >> > - pe->freeze_count); >> > - goto perm_error; >> > - >> > -hard_fail: >> > pr_err("EEH: Unable to recover from failure from PHB#%x-PE#%x.\n" >> > "Please try reseating or replacing it\n", >> > pe->phb->global_number, pe->addr); >> > >> > -perm_error: >> >> We will have the message from above pr_err() for "perm_error" case, but >> we don't have that in original code. > >Yes, there's a slight difference here. I chose to print two messages in the >excess failures case, one stating that the failure as been hit and then also >printing the general permanent failure message. I don't think it makes much of >a difference, and it saves a tag. I definitely like only having one goto in the >function. > >Thanks for the review. > Yeah, avoiding unnecessary goto is always nice. I give my RB in another reply. Thanks, Gavin >> >> > eeh_slot_error_detail(pe, EEH_LOG_PERM); >> > >> > /* Notify all devices that they're about to go down. */ >> > @@ -923,6 +928,13 @@ static bool eeh_handle_normal_event(struct eeh_pe *pe) >> > return false; >> > } >> > >> > +/** >> > + * eeh_handle_special_event - Handle EEH events without a specific failing >> > PE >> > + * >> > + * Called when an EEH event is detected but can't be narrowed down to a >> > + * specific PE. Iterates through possible failures and handles them as >> > + * necessary. >> > + */ >> > static void eeh_handle_special_event(void) >> > { >> > struct eeh_pe *pe, *phb_pe; >> >> Thanks, >> Gavin >> >
On Wed, 2017-04-19 at 07:39:27 UTC, Russell Currey wrote: > Remove unnecessary tags in eeh_handle_normal_event(), and add function > comments for eeh_handle_normal_event() and eeh_handle_special_event(). > > The only functional difference is that in the case of a PE reaching the > maximum number of failures, rather than one message telling you of this > and suggesting you reseat the device, there are two separate messages. > > Suggested-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> > Signed-off-by: Russell Currey <ruscur@russell.cc> > Reviewed-by: Andrew Donnellan <andrew.donnellan@au1.ibm.com> > Reviewed-by: Gavin Shan <gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Applied to powerpc next, thanks. https://git.kernel.org/powerpc/c/c0b64978f09195e00d6649ca0ad024 cheers
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh_driver.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh_driver.c index e50d1470714f..c405c79e50cd 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh_driver.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh_driver.c @@ -724,6 +724,15 @@ static int eeh_reset_device(struct eeh_pe *pe, struct pci_bus *bus, */ #define MAX_WAIT_FOR_RECOVERY 300 +/** + * eeh_handle_normal_event - Handle EEH events on a specific PE + * @pe: EEH PE + * + * Attempts to recover the given PE. If recovery fails or the PE has failed + * too many times, remove the PE. + * + * Returns true if @pe should no longer be used, else false. + */ static bool eeh_handle_normal_event(struct eeh_pe *pe) { struct pci_bus *frozen_bus; @@ -741,8 +750,13 @@ static bool eeh_handle_normal_event(struct eeh_pe *pe) eeh_pe_update_time_stamp(pe); pe->freeze_count++; - if (pe->freeze_count > eeh_max_freezes) - goto excess_failures; + if (pe->freeze_count > eeh_max_freezes) { + pr_err("EEH: PHB#%x-PE#%x has failed %d times in the\n" + "last hour and has been permanently disabled.\n", + pe->phb->global_number, pe->addr, + pe->freeze_count); + goto hard_fail; + } pr_warn("EEH: This PCI device has failed %d times in the last hour\n", pe->freeze_count); @@ -872,25 +886,16 @@ static bool eeh_handle_normal_event(struct eeh_pe *pe) return false; -excess_failures: +hard_fail: /* * About 90% of all real-life EEH failures in the field * are due to poorly seated PCI cards. Only 10% or so are * due to actual, failed cards. */ - pr_err("EEH: PHB#%x-PE#%x has failed %d times in the\n" - "last hour and has been permanently disabled.\n" - "Please try reseating or replacing it.\n", - pe->phb->global_number, pe->addr, - pe->freeze_count); - goto perm_error; - -hard_fail: pr_err("EEH: Unable to recover from failure from PHB#%x-PE#%x.\n" "Please try reseating or replacing it\n", pe->phb->global_number, pe->addr); -perm_error: eeh_slot_error_detail(pe, EEH_LOG_PERM); /* Notify all devices that they're about to go down. */ @@ -923,6 +928,13 @@ static bool eeh_handle_normal_event(struct eeh_pe *pe) return false; } +/** + * eeh_handle_special_event - Handle EEH events without a specific failing PE + * + * Called when an EEH event is detected but can't be narrowed down to a + * specific PE. Iterates through possible failures and handles them as + * necessary. + */ static void eeh_handle_special_event(void) { struct eeh_pe *pe, *phb_pe;
Remove unnecessary tags in eeh_handle_normal_event(), and add function comments for eeh_handle_normal_event() and eeh_handle_special_event(). The only functional difference is that in the case of a PE reaching the maximum number of failures, rather than one message telling you of this and suggesting you reseat the device, there are two separate messages. Suggested-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> Signed-off-by: Russell Currey <ruscur@russell.cc> --- V3: new. Thanks to Alexey for the suggestions. --- arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh_driver.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)