On 04/03/2025 01:58, Jon Pan-Doh wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 12:31 AM Karolina Stolarek
<karolina.stolarek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In my opinion, we want them to be separate. We may want to see no logs
of errors but still have them recorded in rasdaemon, for example.
Understood. So the sysfs toggles could be something like:
aer/ratelimit_log_enable
aer/ratelimit_irq_enable (with default = off)
This assumes that IRQ ratelimiting part is able to be merged.
Sounds good to me
FYI, the current implementation ratelimits for both logs and trace
events, but increments AER counters. If there's a scenario where you'd
want no logs but have trace events sent, then we may need another
ratelimit and/or roll that into IRQ ratelimiting (to avoid trace
buffer/userspace agent getting inundated with events). Granted, there
is probably a higher tolerance for spam there than in console logs.
Right, I see what you mean. I think we would like to still trace them,
at least that's what I got from the conversation I had with Jonathan[1].
It would be good to agree on the final solution here.
All the best,
Karolina
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] - https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20241216104424.00000fab@xxxxxxxxxx/
If that's desirable, maybe it could be a follow-up as well? I figure
this series is at least a good first step to handle any spam (vs.
status quo).
Thanks,
Jon
