[PATCH v2 1/3] powerpc/numa: Print debug statements only when required

[Laurent Dufour]

Le 21/08/2021 à 12:25, Srikar Dronamraju a écrit :
> Currently, a debug message gets printed every time an attempt to
> add(remove) a CPU. However this is redundant if the CPU is already added
> (removed) from the node.
> 
> Cc: linuxppc-dev at lists.ozlabs.org
> Cc: Nathan Lynch <nathanl at linux.ibm.com>
> Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe at ellerman.id.au>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo at kernel.org>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org>
> Cc: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider at arm.com>
> Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <ego at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot at linaro.org>
> Cc: Geetika Moolchandani <Geetika.Moolchandani1 at ibm.com>
> Cc: Laurent Dufour <ldufour at linux.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>   arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c | 11 +++++------
>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> index f2bf98bdcea2..fbe03f6840e0 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> @@ -141,10 +141,11 @@ static void map_cpu_to_node(int cpu, int node)
>   {
>   	update_numa_cpu_lookup_table(cpu, node);
>   
> -	dbg("adding cpu %d to node %d\n", cpu, node);
>   
> -	if (!(cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, node_to_cpumask_map[node])))
> +	if (!(cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, node_to_cpumask_map[node]))) {
> +		dbg("adding cpu %d to node %d\n", cpu, node);
>   		cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, node_to_cpumask_map[node]);
> +	}
>   }
>   
>   #if defined(CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU) || defined(CONFIG_PPC_SPLPAR)
> @@ -152,13 +153,11 @@ static void unmap_cpu_from_node(unsigned long cpu)
>   {
>   	int node = numa_cpu_lookup_table[cpu];
>   
> -	dbg("removing cpu %lu from node %d\n", cpu, node);
> -
>   	if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, node_to_cpumask_map[node])) {
>   		cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, node_to_cpumask_map[node]);
> +		dbg("removing cpu %lu from node %d\n", cpu, node);
>   	} else {
> -		printk(KERN_ERR "WARNING: cpu %lu not found in node %d\n",
> -		       cpu, node);
> +		pr_err("WARNING: cpu %lu not found in node %d\n", cpu, node);

Would pr_warn() be more appropriate here (or removing the "WARNING" statement)?

>   	}
>   }
>   #endif /* CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU || CONFIG_PPC_SPLPAR */
>