[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181108075934.GL27423@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 08:59:34 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oscar Salvador <OSalvador@...e.com>,
Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] mm, memory_hotplug: print reason for the
offlining failure
On Thu 08-11-18 11:53:21, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>
>
> On 11/07/2018 03:48 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> >
> > The memory offlining failure reporting is inconsistent and insufficient.
> > Some error paths simply do not report the failure to the log at all.
> > When we do report there are no details about the reason of the failure
> > and there are several of them which makes memory offlining failures
> > hard to debug.
> >
> > Make sure that the
> > memory offlining [mem %#010llx-%#010llx] failed
> > message is printed for all failures and also provide a short textual
> > reason for the failure e.g.
> >
> > [ 1984.506184] rac1 kernel: memory offlining [mem 0x82600000000-0x8267fffffff] failed due to signal backoff
> >
> > this tells us that the offlining has failed because of a signal pending
> > aka user intervention.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
>
> It might help to enumerate these failure reason strings and use macros.
Does it really make sense when all of them are on-off things? I would
agree if they were reused somewhere.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists