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