[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191018194017.GE17053@zn.tnic>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 21:40:17 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"bberg@...hat.com" <bberg@...hat.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"hdegoede@...hat.com" <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
"ckellner@...hat.com" <ckellner@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86, mce, therm_throt: Optimize logging of thermal
throttle messages
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 08:55:17AM -0700, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> I assume that someone is having performance issues or occasion reboots,
> look at the logs. Is it a fair assumption?
Yes, that is a valid use case IMO.
> But if a system is running at up to 87.5% of duty cycle on top of
> lowest possible frequency of around 800MHz, someone will notice.
Yes, but that doesn't justify for those printk statements to be
KERN_CRIT. They're just fine as warnings.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists