Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200214143035.607115-1-e.velu@criteo.com> <20200214170508.GB20690@linux.intel.com>
 <70b4d8fa-57c0-055b-8391-4952dec32a58@criteo.com> <20200218184802.GC28156@linux.intel.com>
 <91db305a-1d81-61a6-125b-3094e75b4b3e@criteo.com> <20200219161827.GD15888@linux.intel.com>
 <646147a6-730b-0366-10db-ed74489ad11e@criteo.com> <ea2800cf-4c23-9cb5-5904-08a709f6d594@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <ea2800cf-4c23-9cb5-5904-08a709f6d594@redhat.com>
From:   Erwan Velu <erwanaliasr1@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:52:12 +0100
Message-ID: <CAL2JzuzmdFApEQbjs14fL4uErjHf62nFRy8UYB=hTCRhxaKk0w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm: x86: Print "disabled by bios" only once per host
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     Erwan Velu <e.velu@criteo.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

I'll send a patch in this direction.
Thanks,

Le mer. 19 f=C3=A9vr. 2020 =C3=A0 18:51, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com=
> a =C3=A9crit :
>
> On 19/02/20 17:53, Erwan Velu wrote:
> >
> >
> > I've been testing the ratelimited which is far better but still prints
> > 12 messages.
>
> 12 is already much better than 256.  Someone else will have an even
> bigger system requiring a larger delay, so I'd go with the default.
>
> Paolo
>
> > I saw the ratelimit is on about 5 sec, I wonder if we can explicit a
> > longer one for this one.
> >
> > I searched around this but it doesn't seems that hacking the delay is a
> > common usage.
> >
> > Do you have any insights/ideas around that ?
> >
> >
> > Switching to ratelimit could be done by replacing the actual call or ad=
d
> > a macro similar to  kvm_pr_unimpl() so it can be reused easily.
>