LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dmitry Safonov <dima@arista.com>
To: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 0x7f454c46@gmail.com,
	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
	iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3] iommu/intel: Ratelimit each dmar fault printing
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:54:22 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1521129262.2686.23.camel@arista.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180315152828.GA11365@8bytes.org>

On Thu, 2018-03-15 at 16:28 +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 02:42:00PM +0000, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> > But even with loop-limit we will need ratelimit each printk()
> > *also*.
> > Otherwise loop-limit will be based on time spent printing, not on
> > anything else..
> > The patch makes sense even with loop-limit in my opinion.
> 
> Looks like I mis-read your patch, somehow it looked to me as if you
> replace all 'ratelimited' usages with a call to __ratelimit(), but
> you
> just move 'ratelimited' into the loop, which actually makes sense.

Oh, ok

> But still, this alone is no proper fix for the soft-lockups you are
> seeing.

Well, I can also limit number of loops with say cap_num_fault_regs().
I didn't do that as on my measures the time spent on clearing a fault
is so small, that I'm not sure if it's possible to stuck in this loop.

-- 
Thanks,
             Dmitry

  reply	other threads:[~2018-03-15 15:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-02-15 19:17 Dmitry Safonov
2018-03-05 15:00 ` Dmitry Safonov
2018-03-13 16:21   ` Dmitry Safonov
2018-03-15 13:46 ` Joerg Roedel
2018-03-15 14:13   ` Dmitry Safonov
2018-03-15 14:22     ` Joerg Roedel
2018-03-15 14:34       ` Dmitry Safonov
2018-03-15 14:42         ` Dmitry Safonov
2018-03-15 15:28           ` Joerg Roedel
2018-03-15 15:54             ` Dmitry Safonov [this message]
2018-03-20 20:50             ` Dmitry Safonov
2018-03-29  8:50               ` Joerg Roedel
2018-03-29 13:52                 ` Dmitry Safonov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1521129262.2686.23.camel@arista.com \
    --to=dima@arista.com \
    --cc=0x7f454c46@gmail.com \
    --cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
    --cc=baolu.lu@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
    --cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=joro@8bytes.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCHv3] iommu/intel: Ratelimit each dmar fault printing' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).