From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joerg Roedel Subject: Re: [PATCHv3] iommu/intel: Ratelimit each dmar fault printing Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:22:53 +0100 Message-ID: <20180315142253.GC5259@8bytes.org> References: <20180215191729.15777-1-dima@arista.com> <20180315134649.skh2aukcmg5ud74y@8bytes.org> <1521123183.2686.7.camel@arista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1521123183.2686.7.camel-nzgTgzXrdUbQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Dmitry Safonov Cc: 0x7f454c46-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, David Woodhouse , Ingo Molnar List-Id: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 02:13:03PM +0000, Dmitry Safonov wrote: > So, you suggest to remove ratelimit at all? > Do we really need printk flood for each happened fault? > Imagine, you've hundreds of mappings and then PCI link flapped.. > Wouldn't it be better to keep ratelimiting? > I don't mind, just it looks a bit strange to me. I never said you should remove the ratelimiting, after all you are trying to fix a soft-lockup, no? And that should not be fixed by changes to the ratelimiting, but with proper irq handling. Joerg