> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:26:50AM -0400, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Indeed, ignore_msrs does a completely different thing. It suppresses
> > general protection faults in the guest. It is related to behavior that
> > KVM injects in the guests, not to the things that KVM spews in the host.
> >
> > What about just downgrading the printf to KERN_DEBUG? You could simply
> > change from vcpu_unimpl to vcpu_debug, but it's probably a good idea to
> > keep the ratelimiting; there's a kvm_pr_unimpl, so maybe add a new
> > kvm_pr_debug and vcpu_pr_debug.
>
> Hm, we've certainly got a lot of options in terms of print primitives these
> days.
>
> We could just do this...
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> index 1c9c973a7dd9..a80b9a0a5f8c 100644
> --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> @@ -423,7 +423,7 @@ struct kvm {
> #define kvm_debug(fmt, ...) \
> pr_debug("kvm [%i]: " fmt, task_pid_nr(current), ## __VA_ARGS__)
> #define kvm_pr_unimpl(fmt, ...) \
> - pr_err_ratelimited("kvm [%i]: " fmt, \
> + pr_debug_ratelimited("kvm [%i]: " fmt, \
> task_tgid_nr(current), ## __VA_ARGS__)
>
> /* The guest did something we don't support. */
>
> Which I think would have the desired effect, and also gets us dynamic debug
> support for free.
There are some "unimplemented" messages that would be affected and really
should be errors (or even WARNs), but I guess this patch is okay. Can you
submit it with SoB and all that?
Thanks,
Paolo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
