Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] powerpc/eeh: Avoid event on passed PE
On 21.05.14 07:03, Gavin Shan wrote:
If we detects frozen state on PE that has been passed to guest, we
needn't handle it. Instead, we rely on the guest to detect and recover
it. The patch avoid EEH event on the frozen passed PE so that the guest
can have chance to handle that.
Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan gws...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c | 8
arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-ioda.c | 3 ++-
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c
index 2aaf90e..25fd12d 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c
@@ -400,6 +400,14 @@ int eeh_dev_check_failure(struct eeh_dev *edev)
if (ret 0)
return ret;
+ /*
+* If the PE has been passed to guest, we won't check the
+* state. Instead, let the guest handle it if the PE has
What guest? The kernel doesn't care whether we use VFIO for a guest or not.
Alex
+* been frozen.
+*/
+ if (eeh_pe_passed(pe))
+ return 0;
+
/* If we already have a pending isolation event for this
* slot, we know it's bad already, we don't need to check.
* Do this checking under a lock; as multiple PCI devices
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-ioda.c
b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-ioda.c
index 1b5982f..03a3ed2 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-ioda.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-ioda.c
@@ -890,7 +890,8 @@ static int ioda_eeh_next_error(struct eeh_pe **pe)
opal_pci_eeh_freeze_clear(phb-opal_id,
frozen_pe_no,
OPAL_EEH_ACTION_CLEAR_FREEZE_ALL);
ret = EEH_NEXT_ERR_NONE;
- } else if ((*pe)-state EEH_PE_ISOLATED) {
+ } else if ((*pe)-state EEH_PE_ISOLATED ||
+ eeh_pe_passed(*pe)) {
ret = EEH_NEXT_ERR_NONE;
} else {
pr_err(EEH: Frozen PHB#%x-PE#%x (%s)
detected\n,
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] powerpc/eeh: Avoid event on passed PE
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 03:13:11PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 21.05.14 07:03, Gavin Shan wrote:
If we detects frozen state on PE that has been passed to guest, we
needn't handle it. Instead, we rely on the guest to detect and recover
it. The patch avoid EEH event on the frozen passed PE so that the guest
can have chance to handle that.
Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan gws...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c | 8
arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-ioda.c | 3 ++-
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c
index 2aaf90e..25fd12d 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c
@@ -400,6 +400,14 @@ int eeh_dev_check_failure(struct eeh_dev *edev)
if (ret 0)
return ret;
+ /*
+ * If the PE has been passed to guest, we won't check the
+ * state. Instead, let the guest handle it if the PE has
What guest? The kernel doesn't care whether we use VFIO for a guest or not.
Ok. I'll not mention guest and vfio in next revision.
Thanks,
Gavin
Alex
+ * been frozen.
+ */
+ if (eeh_pe_passed(pe))
+ return 0;
+
/* If we already have a pending isolation event for this
* slot, we know it's bad already, we don't need to check.
* Do this checking under a lock; as multiple PCI devices
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-ioda.c
b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-ioda.c
index 1b5982f..03a3ed2 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-ioda.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-ioda.c
@@ -890,7 +890,8 @@ static int ioda_eeh_next_error(struct eeh_pe **pe)
opal_pci_eeh_freeze_clear(phb-opal_id,
frozen_pe_no,
OPAL_EEH_ACTION_CLEAR_FREEZE_ALL);
ret = EEH_NEXT_ERR_NONE;
- } else if ((*pe)-state EEH_PE_ISOLATED) {
+ } else if ((*pe)-state EEH_PE_ISOLATED ||
+eeh_pe_passed(*pe)) {
ret = EEH_NEXT_ERR_NONE;
} else {
pr_err(EEH: Frozen PHB#%x-PE#%x (%s)
detected\n,
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
[PATCH v5 4/4] powerpc/eeh: Avoid event on passed PE
If we detects frozen state on PE that has been passed to guest, we
needn't handle it. Instead, we rely on the guest to detect and recover
it. The patch avoid EEH event on the frozen passed PE so that the guest
can have chance to handle that.
Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan gws...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c | 8
arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-ioda.c | 3 ++-
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c
index 2aaf90e..25fd12d 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c
@@ -400,6 +400,14 @@ int eeh_dev_check_failure(struct eeh_dev *edev)
if (ret 0)
return ret;
+ /*
+* If the PE has been passed to guest, we won't check the
+* state. Instead, let the guest handle it if the PE has
+* been frozen.
+*/
+ if (eeh_pe_passed(pe))
+ return 0;
+
/* If we already have a pending isolation event for this
* slot, we know it's bad already, we don't need to check.
* Do this checking under a lock; as multiple PCI devices
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-ioda.c
b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-ioda.c
index 1b5982f..03a3ed2 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-ioda.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-ioda.c
@@ -890,7 +890,8 @@ static int ioda_eeh_next_error(struct eeh_pe **pe)
opal_pci_eeh_freeze_clear(phb-opal_id,
frozen_pe_no,
OPAL_EEH_ACTION_CLEAR_FREEZE_ALL);
ret = EEH_NEXT_ERR_NONE;
- } else if ((*pe)-state EEH_PE_ISOLATED) {
+ } else if ((*pe)-state EEH_PE_ISOLATED ||
+ eeh_pe_passed(*pe)) {
ret = EEH_NEXT_ERR_NONE;
} else {
pr_err(EEH: Frozen PHB#%x-PE#%x (%s)
detected\n,
--
1.8.3.2
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
