On 9/3/2021 9:45 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>
>
> On 8/30/21 5:46 PM, Bharata B Rao wrote:
>> Print information message about the allocation fallback order
>> for each NUMA node during boot.
>>
>> No functional changes here. This makes it easier to illustrate
>> the problem in the node fallback list generation, which the
>> next patch fixes.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Bharata B Rao <bharata@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> mm/page_alloc.c | 4 ++++
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> index eeb3a9cb36bb..22f7ad6ec11c 100644
>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> @@ -6277,6 +6277,10 @@ static void build_zonelists(pg_data_t *pgdat)
>>
>> build_zonelists_in_node_order(pgdat, node_order, nr_nodes);
>> build_thisnode_zonelists(pgdat);
>> + pr_info("Fallback order for Node %d: ", local_node);
>> + for (node = 0; node < nr_nodes; node++)
>> + pr_cont("%d ", node_order[node]);
>> + pr_cont("\n");
>> }
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES
>>
>
> A small nit, checkpatch.pl throws up an warning. Should this use
> pr_info() instead ?
>
> WARNING: Avoid logging continuation uses where feasible
> #29: FILE: mm/page_alloc.c:6282:
> + pr_cont("%d ", node_order[node]);
>
> WARNING: Avoid logging continuation uses where feasible
> #30: FILE: mm/page_alloc.c:6283:
> + pr_cont("\n");
>
> total: 0 errors, 2 warnings, 10 lines checked
Yes, I am aware of this, but then it made sense for the fallback list
to be printed in one line continuously. Hence used pr_cont().
Regards,
Bharata.
>
