From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752592AbeCOOW5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:22:57 -0400 Received: from 8bytes.org ([81.169.241.247]:42904 "EHLO theia.8bytes.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752425AbeCOOWz (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:22:55 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:22:53 +0100 From: Joerg Roedel To: Dmitry Safonov Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 0x7f454c46@gmail.com, Alex Williamson , David Woodhouse , Ingo Molnar , Lu Baolu , iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv3] iommu/intel: Ratelimit each dmar fault printing 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-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1521123183.2686.7.camel@arista.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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