On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 5:24 PM Grant Grundler <grundler@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 12:38 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 10:04:53PM -0800, Grant Grundler wrote: > > > Since correctable errors have been corrected (and counted), the dmesg output > > > should not be reported as a warning, but rather as "informational". > > > > > > Otherwise, using a certain well known vendor's PCIe parts in a USB4 docking > > > station, the dmesg buffer can be spammed with correctable errors, 717 bytes > > > per instance, potentially many MB per day. > > > > > > Given the "WARN" priority, these messages have already confused the typical > > > user that stumbles across them, support staff (triaging feedback reports), > > > and more than a few linux kernel devs. Changing to INFO will hide these > > > messages from most audiences. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Grant Grundler <grundler@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > This patch will likely conflict with: > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230103165548.570377-1-rajat.khandelwal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > which I'd also like to see upstream. Please let me know to resubmit > > > mine if Rajat's patch lands first. Or feel free to fix up this one. > > > > Yes. I think it makes sense to separate this into two patches: > > > > 1) Log correctable errors as KERN_INFO instead of KERN_WARNING, and > > 2) Rate-limit correctable error logging. > > I'm going to look into your comment below. I'll port Rajat's patch on > top of mine to follow the order you've listed above. > > > > drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c | 4 ++-- > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c > > > index f6c24ded134c..e4cf3ec40d66 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c > > > +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c > > > @@ -692,7 +692,7 @@ static void __aer_print_error(struct pci_dev *dev, > > > > > > if (info->severity == AER_CORRECTABLE) { > > > strings = aer_correctable_error_string; > > > - level = KERN_WARNING; > > > + level = KERN_INFO; > > > } else { > > > strings = aer_uncorrectable_error_string; > > > level = KERN_ERR; > > > @@ -724,7 +724,7 @@ void aer_print_error(struct pci_dev *dev, struct aer_err_info *info) > > > layer = AER_GET_LAYER_ERROR(info->severity, info->status); > > > agent = AER_GET_AGENT(info->severity, info->status); > > > > > > - level = (info->severity == AER_CORRECTABLE) ? KERN_WARNING : KERN_ERR; > > > + level = (info->severity == AER_CORRECTABLE) ? KERN_INFO : KERN_ERR; > > > > > > pci_printk(level, dev, "PCIe Bus Error: severity=%s, type=%s, (%s)\n", > > > aer_error_severity_string[info->severity], > > > > Shouldn't we do the same in the cper_print_aer() path? That path > > currently uses pci_err() and then calls __aer_print_error(), so the > > initial message will always be KERN_ERR, and the decoding done by > > __aer_print_error() will be KERN_INFO (for correctable) or KERN_ERR. > > I was completely unaware of this since it's not causing me any > immediate problems. But I agree the message priority should be > consistent for correctable errors. I've just posted a V2 which I believe is against "pci-next": grundler <1607>git remote -v show pci-next * remote pci-next Fetch URL: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/pci/pci.git Push URL: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/pci/pci.git HEAD branch: main Remote branches: aer tracked controller/dt tracked controller/kirin tracked controller/layerscape tracked controller/rcar tracked for-linus tracked main tracked next tracked Local branch configured for 'git pull': aer_correctable_info merges with remote next Please let me know if this is the wrong git tree and branch to track. > > Seems like a shame to do the same test in three places, but would > > require a little more refactoring to avoid that. > > I don't mind doing the same test in multiple places. If refactoring > this isn't straight forward, I'll leave the refactoring for someone > more ambitious. :D I've moved one of the pci_info lines from cper_print_aer() to __aer_print_info() since the status/mask are the same for both paths that invoke __aer_print_info(). But that's as far as I understand what each of the paths that calls __aer_print_info() do. If this is not OK, I can move it back. cheers, grant
