[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <57ED3F1B.2040602@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 13:19:39 -0300
From: "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, ariel.elior@...gic.com,
Yuval.Mintz@...gic.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] bnx2x: avoid printing unnecessary messages
during register dump
On 09/27/2016 11:43 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 15:33:54 -0300
>
>> The bnx2x driver prints multiple error messages during register dump,
>> with "ethtool -d" for example. The driver even warn that many messages
>> might be seen during the register dump, but they are harmless. A typical
>> kernel log after register dump looks like this:
>>
>> [9.375] bnx2x: [bnx2x_get_regs:987(net0)]Generating register dump. Might trigger harmless GRC timeouts
>> [9.439] bnx2x: [bnx2x_attn_int_deasserted3:4342(net0)]LATCHED attention 0x04000000 (masked)
>> [9.439] bnx2x: [bnx2x_attn_int_deasserted3:4346(net0)]GRC time-out 0x010580cd
>> [...]
>>
>> The notation [...] means that some messages were supressed - in our
>> tests we saw 78 more "LATCHED attention" and "GRC time-out" messages,
>> supressed here.
>>
>> This patch avoid these messages to be printed on register dump instead
>> of just warn they are harmless.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Guilherme G. Piccoli <gpiccoli@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> Although "ethtool -d" is really a debugging facility, I still think that
> serious care should be placed into arranging what gets dumped in such
> a way that such access timeouts and errors are minimized.
>
David, thanks for your comment. I confess I didn't understand your
statement quite well. You say we shouldn't dump registers that will
cause timeouts, that's it?
If yes, I guess this is a valid point. We will however loose some debug
information (as you mentioned, 'ethtool -d' is a debug facility). Now,
since I'm no expert in QLogic adapter hw/fw, I want to ask Yuval/Ariel
why those timeouts are hit anyway. Are they completely harmless?
In my understanding/opinion, hiding the messages entirely (as this patch
does) OR avoid the timeouts by disabling some registers' dump are both
better alternatives than the current behavior of the driver.
Thanks,
Guilherme
Powered by blists - more mailing lists