Thread (16 messages) 16 messages, 4 authors, 2021-10-11

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

flat view

From: Laurent Dufour <hidden>
Date: 2021-08-23 09:22:51

Le 21/08/2021 à 12:25, Srikar Dronamraju a écrit :
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
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: <redacted>
Cc: Nathan Lynch <redacted>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Valentin Schneider <redacted>
Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <redacted>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Geetika Moolchandani <redacted>
Cc: Laurent Dufour <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Srikar Dronamraju <redacted>
---
  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)?
  	}
  }
  #endif /* CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU || CONFIG_PPC_SPLPAR */
  
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help