Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] powerpc/numa: Print debug statements only when required

From: Srikar Dronamraju <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 15:08:01 +0530

* Laurent Dufour <[email-masked]> [2021-08-23 11:21:33]:

> Le 21/08/2021 à 12:25, Srikar Dronamraju a écrit :
> > Currently, a debug message gets printed every time an attempt to
> > add(remove) a CPU. However this is redundant if the CPU is already added
> > (removed) from the node.
> > 
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> > Cc: Nathan Lynch <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: Michael Ellerman <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: Valentin Schneider <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: Vincent Guittot <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: Geetika Moolchandani <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: Laurent Dufour <[email-masked]>
> > Signed-off-by: Srikar Dronamraju <[email-masked]>
> > ---
> >   arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c | 11 +++++------
> >   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > index f2bf98bdcea2..fbe03f6840e0 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > @@ -141,10 +141,11 @@ static void map_cpu_to_node(int cpu, int node)
> >   {
> >   	update_numa_cpu_lookup_table(cpu, node);
> > -	dbg("adding cpu %d to node %d\n", cpu, node);
> > -	if (!(cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, node_to_cpumask_map[node])))
> > +	if (!(cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, node_to_cpumask_map[node]))) {
> > +		dbg("adding cpu %d to node %d\n", cpu, node);
> >   		cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, node_to_cpumask_map[node]);
> > +	}
> >   }
> >   #if defined(CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU) || defined(CONFIG_PPC_SPLPAR)
> > @@ -152,13 +153,11 @@ static void unmap_cpu_from_node(unsigned long cpu)
> >   {
> >   	int node = numa_cpu_lookup_table[cpu];
> > -	dbg("removing cpu %lu from node %d\n", cpu, node);
> > -
> >   	if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, node_to_cpumask_map[node])) {
> >   		cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, node_to_cpumask_map[node]);
> > +		dbg("removing cpu %lu from node %d\n", cpu, node);
> >   	} else {
> > -		printk(KERN_ERR "WARNING: cpu %lu not found in node %d\n",
> > -		       cpu, node);
> > +		pr_err("WARNING: cpu %lu not found in node %d\n", cpu, node);
> 
> Would pr_warn() be more appropriate here (or removing the "WARNING" statement)?

Its a fair point.

Michael,

Do you want me to resend this patch with s/pr_err/pr_warn for the above
line?

> 
> >   	}
> >   }
> >   #endif /* CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU || CONFIG_PPC_SPLPAR */
> > 
> 

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju