[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150701213430.GA21490@node.dhcp.inet.fi>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 00:34:30 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] mm: debug: dump page into a string rather than
directly on screen
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 02:25:56PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2015, Sasha Levin wrote:
>
> > On 06/30/2015 07:35 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
> > > I don't know how others feel, but this looks strange to me and seems like
> > > it's only a result of how we must now dump page information
> > > (dump_page(page) is no longer available, we must do pr_alert("%pZp",
> > > page)).
> > >
> > > Since we're relying on print formats, this would arguably be better as
> > >
> > > pr_alert("Not movable balloon page:\n");
> > > pr_alert("%pZp", page);
> > >
> > > to avoid introducing newlines into potentially lengthy messages that need
> > > a specified loglevel like you've done above.
> > >
> > > But that's not much different than the existing dump_page()
> > > implementation.
> > >
> > > So for this to be worth it, it seems like we'd need a compelling usecase
> > > for something like pr_alert("%pZp %pZv", page, vma) and I'm not sure we're
> > > ever actually going to see that. I would argue that
> > >
> > > dump_page(page);
> > > dump_vma(vma);
> > >
> > > would be simpler in such circumstances.
> >
> > I think we can find usecases where we want to dump more information than what's
> > contained in just one page/vma/mm struct. Things like the following from mm/gup.c:
> >
> > VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(compound_head(page) != head, page);
> >
> > Where seeing 'head' would be interesting as well.
> >
>
> I think it's a debate about whether this would be better off handled as
>
> if (VM_BUG_ON(compound_head(page) != head)) {
> dump_page(page);
> dump_page(head);
Huh? How would we reach this, if VM_BUG_ON() will trigger BUG()?
> }
>
> and avoid VM_BUG_ON_PAGE() and the new print formats entirely. We can
> improve upon existing VM_BUG_ON(), and BUG_ON() itself since the VM isn't
> anything special in this regard, to print diagnostic information that may
> be helpful, but I don't feel like adding special VM_BUG_ON_*() macros or
> printing formats makes any of this simpler.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists