From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172] helo=ns3.lanforge.com) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1WE2xs-00040F-Jl for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:32:57 +0000 Message-ID: <52FD2BE2.50706@candelatech.com> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:32:34 -0800 From: Ben Greear MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ath10k: do not ratelimit ath10k_warn messages References: <1392318562-32440-1-git-send-email-greearb@candelatech.com> <1392318562-32440-2-git-send-email-greearb@candelatech.com> <87fvnm7pml.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <87fvnm7pml.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "ath10k" Errors-To: ath10k-bounces+kvalo=adurom.com@lists.infradead.org To: Kalle Valo Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath10k@lists.infradead.org On 02/13/2014 11:56 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: > greearb@candelatech.com writes: > >> These are too important to miss, and if we ever do have some >> that are overly verbose > > The thing is that in some platforms excessive amount log messages will > cause watchdog to forcefully reboot the device. So I'm hesitant to > remove this. > > First of all, the goal is that ath10k will never issue even a single > warning message. So even if you see just one, it means something is > wrong. And just seeing the first few warnings should give you a pretty > good hint what's going on. I see lots of EAGAIN (-11) warnings sometime, and they come in bunches in my scenario (with lots of vifs). > Secondly, it's not like net_ratelimit() will hide all the warning > messages. It will still show some of the messages even if it starts to > throttle them. In my case, it hid exactly the messages I needed to see in a hard to reproduce bug, so I was a bit peeved :P >> could ratelimit the call to ath10k_warn instead of doing the ratelimit >> inside of ath10k_warn. > > Not sure if I got this idea. Only to ratelimit some of the warnings or > what do you mean by ratelimiting it outside ath10k_warn()? If there are warnings that are likely to spam continuously, then ratelimit only those, so something like: if (netratelimit()) { ath10k_warn(...) } But, this is an easy patch for me to carry, so no worries if it doesn't go upstream. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:37066 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751756AbaBMUc6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Feb 2014 15:32:58 -0500 Message-ID: <52FD2BE2.50706@candelatech.com> (sfid-20140213_214141_889322_D65A8EFE) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:32:34 -0800 From: Ben Greear MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kalle Valo CC: ath10k@lists.infradead.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ath10k: do not ratelimit ath10k_warn messages References: <1392318562-32440-1-git-send-email-greearb@candelatech.com> <1392318562-32440-2-git-send-email-greearb@candelatech.com> <87fvnm7pml.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <87fvnm7pml.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 02/13/2014 11:56 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: > greearb@candelatech.com writes: > >> These are too important to miss, and if we ever do have some >> that are overly verbose > > The thing is that in some platforms excessive amount log messages will > cause watchdog to forcefully reboot the device. So I'm hesitant to > remove this. > > First of all, the goal is that ath10k will never issue even a single > warning message. So even if you see just one, it means something is > wrong. And just seeing the first few warnings should give you a pretty > good hint what's going on. I see lots of EAGAIN (-11) warnings sometime, and they come in bunches in my scenario (with lots of vifs). > Secondly, it's not like net_ratelimit() will hide all the warning > messages. It will still show some of the messages even if it starts to > throttle them. In my case, it hid exactly the messages I needed to see in a hard to reproduce bug, so I was a bit peeved :P >> could ratelimit the call to ath10k_warn instead of doing the ratelimit >> inside of ath10k_warn. > > Not sure if I got this idea. Only to ratelimit some of the warnings or > what do you mean by ratelimiting it outside ath10k_warn()? If there are warnings that are likely to spam continuously, then ratelimit only those, so something like: if (netratelimit()) { ath10k_warn(...) } But, this is an easy patch for me to carry, so no worries if it doesn't go upstream. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com