[reposting in plain text mode]
On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 12:46 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2023 at 11:53:27AM -0700, Grant Grundler wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 12:50 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 10:51:09AM -0700, Grant Grundler wrote:
> > > > From: Rajat Khandelwal <rajat.khandelwal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > There are many instances where correctable errors tend to inundate
> > > > the message buffer. We observe such instances during thunderbolt PCIe
> > > > tunneling.
> > ...
>
> > > > if (info->severity == AER_CORRECTABLE)
> > > > - pci_info(dev, " [%2d] %-22s%s\n", i, errmsg,
> > > > - info->first_error == i ? " (First)" : "");
> > > > + pci_info_ratelimited(dev, " [%2d] %-22s%s\n", i, errmsg,
> > > > + info->first_error == i ? " (First)" : "");
> > >
> > > I don't think this is going to reliably work the way we want. We have
> > > a bunch of pci_info_ratelimited() calls, and each caller has its own
> > > ratelimit_state data. Unless we call pci_info_ratelimited() exactly
> > > the same number of times for each error, the ratelimit counters will
> > > get out of sync and we'll end up printing fragments from error A mixed
> > > with fragments from error B.
> >
> > Ok - what I'm reading between the lines here is the output should be
> > emitted in one step, not multiple pci_info_ratelimited() calls. if the
> > code built an output string (using sprintnf()), and then called
> > pci_info_ratelimited() exactly once at the bottom, would that be
> > sufficient?
> >
> > > I think we need to explicitly manage the ratelimiting ourselves,
> > > similar to print_hmi_event_info() or print_extlog_rcd(). Then we can
> > > have a *single* ratelimit_state, and we can check it once to determine
> > > whether to log this correctable error.
> >
> > Is the rate limiting per call location or per device? From above, I
> > understood rate limiting is "per call location". If the code only
> > has one call location, it should achieve the same goal, right?
>
> Rate-limiting is per call location, so yes, if we only have one call
> location, that would solve it. It would also have the nice property
> that all the output would be atomic so it wouldn't get mixed with
> other stuff, and it might encourage us to be a little less wordy in
> the output.
>
> But I don't think we need output in a single step; we just need a
> single instance of ratelimit_state (or one for CPER path and another
> for native AER path), and that can control all the output for a single
> error. E.g., print_hmi_event_info() looks like this:
>
> static void print_hmi_event_info(...)
> {
> static DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(rs, ...);
>
> if (__ratelimit(&rs)) {
> printk("%s%s Hypervisor Maintenance interrupt ...");
> printk("%s Error detail: %s\n", ...);
> printk("%s HMER: %016llx\n", ...);
> }
> }
>
> I think it's nice that the struct ratelimit_state is explicit and
> there's no danger of breaking it when adding another printk later.
>
> It *could* be per pci_dev, too, but I suspect it's not worth spending
> 40ish bytes per device for the ratelimit data.
>
> Bjorn
