[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ea2800cf-4c23-9cb5-5904-08a709f6d594@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:51:00 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Erwan Velu <e.velu@...teo.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc: Erwan Velu <erwanaliasr1@...il.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm: x86: Print "disabled by bios" only once per host
On 19/02/20 17:53, Erwan Velu wrote:
>
>
> I've been testing the ratelimited which is far better but still prints
> 12 messages.
12 is already much better than 256. Someone else will have an even
bigger system requiring a larger delay, so I'd go with the default.
Paolo
> I saw the ratelimit is on about 5 sec, I wonder if we can explicit a
> longer one for this one.
>
> I searched around this but it doesn't seems that hacking the delay is a
> common usage.
>
> Do you have any insights/ideas around that ?
>
>
> Switching to ratelimit could be done by replacing the actual call or add
> a macro similar to kvm_pr_unimpl() so it can be reused easily.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists