On 5/7/24 11:08 AM, Axel Rasmussen wrote:
On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 9:43 AM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
That thread seems to have stalled.
Yes, there was no follow-up.
Apologies, I had completely forgotten about this. I blame the weekend. :)
No objections from me to the simple rate limiting proposed here, if
useful you can take:
Acked-by: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@xxxxxxxxxx>
But, it seems to me the earlier proposal may still be useful.
Specifically, don't print at all for "synthetic" poisons from
UFFDIO_POISON or similar mechanisms. This way, "real" errors aren't
gobbled up by the ratelimit due to spam from "synthetic" errors. If
folks agree, I can *actually* send a patch this time. :)
That sounds good to me. (Should it also rate limit, though? I'm leaning
toward yes.)
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
