[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAL2JzuzmdFApEQbjs14fL4uErjHf62nFRy8UYB=hTCRhxaKk0w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:52:12 +0100
From: Erwan Velu <erwanaliasr1@...il.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Erwan Velu <e.velu@...teo.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.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, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm: x86: Print "disabled by bios" only once per host
I'll send a patch in this direction.
Thanks,
Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 18:51, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> a écrit :
>
> 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