lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 3/3] vsprintf: dump full information of page flags in pGp
From
Date
On Mon, 2021-02-01 at 14:15 +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 07:56:10PM +0800, Yafang Shao wrote:
> > - Before the patch,
> > [ 6343.396602] Slab 0x000000004382e02b objects=33 used=3 fp=0x000000009ae06ffc flags=0x17ffffc0010200(slab|head)
> >
> > - After the patch,
> > [ 6871.296131] Slab 0x00000000c0e19a37 objects=33 used=3 fp=0x00000000c4902159 flags=0x17ffffc0010200(Node 0,Zone 2,Lastcpupid 0x1fffff,slab|head)
>
> I would suggest it will be easier to parse as:
>
> flags=0x17ffffc0010200(slab|head|node=0|zone=2|lastcpupid=0x1fffff)
>
> That should alleviate the concerns about debugfs format change -- we've
> never guaranteed that flag names won't change, and they now look enough
> like flags that parsers shouldn't fall over them.

Seems sensible and would make the generating code simpler too.

But is it worth the vsprintf code expansion for the 5 current uses?

mm/debug.c: pr_warn("%sflags: %#lx(%pGp)%s\n", type, head->flags, &head->flags,
mm/memory-failure.c: pr_info("soft offline: %#lx: %s migration failed %d, type %lx (%pGp)\n",
mm/memory-failure.c: pr_info("soft offline: %#lx: %s isolation failed, page count %d, type %lx (%pGp)\n",
mm/memory-failure.c: pr_info("%s: %#lx: unknown page type: %lx (%pGp)\n",
mm/page_owner.c: "PFN %lu type %s Block %lu type %s Flags %#lx(%pGp)\n",

Wouldn't it be more sensible just to put this code in a new function
call in mm?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-01 19:52    [W:0.897 / U:0.000 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site