Re: "ata: libata: move ata_{port,link,dev}_dbg to standard pr_XXX() macros" - 742bef476ca5352b16063161fb73a56629a6d995 changed logging behavior and disabled a number of messages

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On 5/7/24 06:49, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> Hello Krzysztof,
> On Sun, May 05, 2024 at 01:06:28PM -0700, Krzysztof Olędzki wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I noticed that since (which also got backported to -stable kernels) several of messages from dmesg regarding the ATA subsystem are no longer logged.
>> For example, on my Dell PowerEdge 840 which has only one PATA port I used to get:
>> scsi host1: ata_piix
>> ata1: PATA max UDMA/100 cmd 0x1f0 ctl 0x3f6 bmdma 0xfc00 irq 14
>> ata2: PATA max UDMA/100 cmd 0x170 ctl 0x376 bmdma 0xfc08 irq 15
>> ata_piix 0000:00:1f.2: MAP [ P0 P2 P1 P3 ]
>> ata2: port disabled--ignoring
>> ata1.01: NODEV after polling detection
>> ata1.00: ATAPI: SAMSUNG CD-R/RW SW-248F, R602, max UDMA/33
>> After that commit, the following two log entries are missing:
>> ata2: port disabled--ignoring
>> ata1.01: NODEV after polling detection
>> Note that these are just examples, there are many more messages impacted by that.
>> Looking at the code, these messages are logged via ata_link_dbg / ata_dev_dbg:
>> ata_link_dbg(link, "port disabled--ignoring\n");	[in drivers/ata/libata-eh.c]
>> ata_dev_dbg(dev, "NODEV after polling detection\n");	[in drivers/ata/libata-core.c]
>> The commit change how the logging is called - ata_dev_printk function which was calling printk() directly got replaced with the following macro:
>> +#define ata_dev_printk(level, dev, fmt, ...)			\
>> +        pr_ ## level("ata%u.%02u: " fmt,			\
>> +               (dev)->link->ap->print_id,			\
>> +	       (dev)->link->pmp + (dev)->devno,			\
>> +	       ##__VA_ARGS__)
>> (...)
>>  #define ata_link_dbg(link, fmt, ...)				\
>> -	ata_link_printk(link, KERN_DEBUG, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
>> +	ata_link_printk(debug, link, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
>> (...)
>>  #define ata_dev_dbg(dev, fmt, ...)				\
>> -	ata_dev_printk(dev, KERN_DEBUG, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
>> +	ata_dev_printk(debug, dev, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__
>> So, instead of printk(..., level == KERN_DEBUG, ) we now call pr_debug(...). This is a problem as printk(msg, KERN_DEBUG) != pr_debug(msg).
>> pr_debug is defined as:
>> /* If you are writing a driver, please use dev_dbg instead */
>> #if defined(CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG) || \
>> #include <linux/dynamic_debug.h>
>> /**
>>  * pr_debug - Print a debug-level message conditionally
>>  * @fmt: format string
>>  * @...: arguments for the format string
>>  *
>>  * This macro expands to dynamic_pr_debug() if CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG is
>>  * set. Otherwise, if DEBUG is defined, it's equivalent to a printk with
>>  * KERN_DEBUG loglevel. If DEBUG is not defined it does nothing.
>>  *
>>  * It uses pr_fmt() to generate the format string (dynamic_pr_debug() uses
>>  * pr_fmt() internally).
>>  */
>> #define pr_debug(fmt, ...)			\
>> 	dynamic_pr_debug(fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
>> #elif defined(DEBUG)
>> #define pr_debug(fmt, ...) \
>> 	printk(KERN_DEBUG pr_fmt(fmt), ##__VA_ARGS__)
>> #else
>> #define pr_debug(fmt, ...) \
>> 	no_printk(KERN_DEBUG pr_fmt(fmt), ##__VA_ARGS__)
>> #endif
>> Without CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG and if no CONFIG_DEBUG is enabled, the end result is calling no_printk which means nothing gets logged.
>> Looking at the code, there are more impacted calls, like for example ata_dev_dbg(dev, "disabling queued TRIM support\n") for ATA_HORKAGE_NO_NCQ_TRIM, which also seems like an important information to log, and there are more.
>> Was this change done intentionally? Note that most of the "debug" printks in libata code seem to be guarded by ata_msg_info / ata_msg_probe / ATA_DEBUG which was sufficient to prevent excess debug information logging.
>> One of the cases like this was covered in the patch:
>> -#ifdef ATA_DEBUG
>>         if (status != 0xff && (status & (ATA_BUSY | ATA_DRQ)))
>> -               ata_port_printk(ap, KERN_DEBUG, "abnormal Status 0x%X\n",
>> -                               status);
>> -#endif
>> +               ata_port_dbg(ap, "abnormal Status 0x%X\n", status);
>> Assuming this is the intended direction, would it make sense for now to at promote "unconditionally" logged messages from ata_link_dbg/ata_dev_dbg to ata_link_info/ata_dev_info?
>> Longer term, perhaps we want to revisit ata_msg_info/ata_msg_probe/ATA_DEBUG/ATA_VERBOSE_DEBUG vs ata_dev_printk/ata_link_printk/pr_debug (and maybe also pr_devel), especially that DYNAMIC_DEBUG is available these days...
> The change to the dynamic debug model was very much intentional.
> CONFIG_ATA_DEBUG/CONFIG_ATA_VERBOSE_DEBUG (and ata_msg_info/ata_msg_probe)
> was replaced with dynamic debug.
> So the reason why you saw the messages before was most likely because you
> If you want to see the same error messages, you are now expected to use
> dynamic debug for the file which you want debug messages enabled.
> I do agree that the debug prints that were NOT guarded by CONFIG_ATA_DEBUG
> do now work differently, as they are no longer printed to dmesg at all.
> I'm not sure if this part was intentional. I'm guessing that it wasn't.
> Looking at these three prints specifically:
> ata_link_dbg(link, "port disabled--ignoring\n");

Given the recent addition of the port map mask, we could restore this print as
an info level.

> ata_dev_dbg(dev, "NODEV after polling detection\n");

This one is weird. It should be an error print.

> ata_dev_dbg(dev, "disabling queued TRIM support\n");

This is also OK to restore as an info print. But given that, there are a lot
more horkage disabling features that we probably should print.

> None of them were protected with CONFIG_ATA_DEBUG/CONFIG_ATA_VERBOSE_DEBUG
> before the series converting to dynamic debug was merged.
> The best way forward is probably to look at all debug prints before the
> series converting to dynamic debug was merged, and see if any print NOT
> guarded by CONFIG_ATA_DEBUG/CONFIG_ATA_VERBOSE_DEBUG should be considered
> to promoted to an info print instead.
> (The prints that were guarded are not relevant, for those you really are
> expected to need to use dynamic debug in order to actually get them
> printed to dmesg.)
> Kind regards,
> Niklas

Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux RAID]     [Git]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Newbie]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux