[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180509081214.GE32366@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 10:12:14 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memblock: print memblock_remove
On Tue 08-05-18 19:42:23, Minchan Kim wrote:
> memblock_remove report is useful to see why MemTotal of /proc/meminfo
> between two kernels makes difference.
>
> Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
> ---
> mm/memblock.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> index 5228f594b13c..03d48d8835ba 100644
> --- a/mm/memblock.c
> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> @@ -697,6 +697,11 @@ static int __init_memblock memblock_remove_range(struct memblock_type *type,
>
> int __init_memblock memblock_remove(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
> {
> + phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1;
> +
> + memblock_dbg("memblock_remove: [%pa-%pa] %pS\n",
> + &base, &end, (void *)_RET_IP_);
Other callers of memblock_dbg use %pF. Is there any reason to be
different here?
Other that that looks ok to me.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists