Re: [PATCHv3] iommu/intel: Ratelimit each dmar fault printing

[Dmitry Safonov <dima@arista.com>]

On Thu, 2018-03-15 at 15:22 +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> 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.

Uh, I'm a bit confused then.
- Isn't it better to ratelimit each printk() instead of bunch of
printks inside irq handler?
- I can limit the number of loops, but the most of the time is spent in
the loop on printk() (on my machine ~170msec per loop), while
everything else takes much lesser time (on my machine < 1 usec per
loop). So, if I will limit number of loops per-irq, that cycle-limit
will be based on limiting time spent on printk (e.g., how many printks
to do in atomic context so that node will not lockup). It smells like
ratelimiting, no?

I must be misunderstanding something, but why introducing another limit
for number of printk() called when there is ratelimit which may be
tuned..

-- 
Thanks,
             Dmitry