On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 02:47:36PM -0700, Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy wrote: > On 3/21/25 12:24 PM, Jon Pan-Doh wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 6:00 PM Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy > > <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Should we exclude fatal errors from the rate limit? Fatal error > > > logs would be really useful for debug analysis, and they not > > > happen very frequently. > > > The logs today only make the distinction between correctable vs. > > uncorrectable so I thought it made sense to be consistent. > > You're right. From a logging perspective, the current driver only > differentiates between correctable and uncorrectable errors. > However, the goal of your patch series is to reduce the spam of > frequent errors. While we are rate-limiting these frequent logs, we > must ensure that we don't miss important logs. I believe we did not > rate-limit DPC logs for this very reason. > > > Maybe this is something that could be deferred? The only fixed > > I am fine with deferring. IIUC, if needed, through sysfs user can > skip rate-limit for uncorrectable errors, right? > > But, is the required change to do this complex? Won't skipping the > rate limit check for fatal errors solve the problem? > > Bjorn, any comments? Do you think Fatal errors should be > rate-limited? I'm inclined to not ratelimit fatal errors unless we've seen issues with a flood of them. Bjorn
