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.
So, is it worth to apply the patch?
> But still, this alone is no proper fix for the soft-lockups you are
> seeing.
Hmm, but this fixes my softlockup issue, because it's about time spent
in printk() inside irq-disabled section, rather about exiting the dmar-
clearing loop.
And on my hw doesn't make any difference to limit loop or not because
clearing a fault is much faster than hw could generate a new fault.
ITOW, it fixes the softlockup for me and the loop-related lockup can't
happen on hw I have (so it's the other issue, [possible?] on other hw).
--
Thanks,
Dmitry
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
