On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 09:20:40AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 10.03.21 08:42, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 08:15:41AM -0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >
> > < snip >
> >
> > > > [...]
> > > > > +void dump_migrate_failure_pages(struct list_head *page_list)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + DEFINE_DYNAMIC_DEBUG_METADATA(descriptor,
> > > > > + "migrate failure");
> > > > > + if (DYNAMIC_DEBUG_BRANCH(descriptor) &&
> > > > > + alloc_contig_ratelimit()) {
> > > > > + struct page *page;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + WARN(1, "failed callstack");
> > > > > + list_for_each_entry(page, page_list, lru)
> > > > > + dump_page(page, "migration failure");
> > > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > Apart from the above, do we have to warn for something that is a
> > > > debugging aid? A similar concern wrt dump_page which uses pr_warn and
> > >
> > > Make sense.
> > >
> > > > page owner is using even pr_alert.
> > > > Would it make sense to add a loglevel parameter both into __dump_page
> > > > and dump_page_owner?
> > >
> > > Let me try it.
> >
> > I looked though them and made first draft to clean them up.
> >
> > It's bigger than my initial expectaion because there are many callsites
> > to use dump_page and stack_trace_print inconsistent loglevel.
> > Since it's not a specific problem for this work, I'd like to deal with
> > it as separate patchset since I don't want to be stuck on here for my
> > initial goal.
>
> Why the need to rush regarding your series?
>
> If it will clean up your patch significantly, then I think doing the
> cleanups first is the proper way to go.
It doesn't clean up my patch at all. dump_page and internal functions
are already broken in several places from print level point of view.
I agreed that it's good to fix but it shouldn't be a block for the work
since it's not a new particular problem this patch introduce.
>
> I really don't get why this is a real problem.
That's because it's not my top priority.
