From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A0B2C433DB for ; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 18:51:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9CAF64E8F for ; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 18:51:09 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C9CAF64E8F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=perches.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 065486B0083; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 13:51:09 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 016496B0085; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 13:51:08 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id E6D776B0087; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 13:51:08 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0187.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.187]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE1C36B0083 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 13:51:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin12.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D0FB3626 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 18:51:08 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77770591416.12.sort31_460be15275c4 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin12.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A23818055196 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 18:51:08 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: sort31_460be15275c4 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 3980 Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0103.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.103]) by imf35.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 18:51:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7187182CF668; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 18:51:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-HE-Tag: star51_2611fb9275c4 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2725 Received: from [192.168.1.159] (unknown [47.151.137.21]) (Authenticated sender: joe@perches.com) by omf12.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 18:51:05 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <9c475803276ea2b32cadc8f72d397c180475d0cc.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] vsprintf: dump full information of page flags in pGp From: Joe Perches To: Matthew Wilcox , Yafang Shao Cc: andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, david@redhat.com, vbabka@suse.cz, linmiaohe@huawei.com, cl@linux.com, penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, pmladek@suse.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com, linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2021 10:51:03 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20210201141505.GR308988@casper.infradead.org> References: <20210201115610.87808-1-laoar.shao@gmail.com> <20210201115610.87808-4-laoar.shao@gmail.com> <20210201141505.GR308988@casper.infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.1-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, 2021-02-01 at 14:15 +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 07:56:10PM +0800, Yafang Shao wrote: > > - Before the patch, > > [ 6343.396602] Slab 0x000000004382e02b objects=33 used=3 fp=0x000000009ae06ffc flags=0x17ffffc0010200(slab|head) > > > > - After the patch, > > [ 6871.296131] Slab 0x00000000c0e19a37 objects=33 used=3 fp=0x00000000c4902159 flags=0x17ffffc0010200(Node 0,Zone 2,Lastcpupid 0x1fffff,slab|head) > > I would suggest it will be easier to parse as: > > flags=0x17ffffc0010200(slab|head|node=0|zone=2|lastcpupid=0x1fffff) > > That should alleviate the concerns about debugfs format change -- we've > never guaranteed that flag names won't change, and they now look enough > like flags that parsers shouldn't fall over them. Seems sensible and would make the generating code simpler too. But is it worth the vsprintf code expansion for the 5 current uses? mm/debug.c: pr_warn("%sflags: %#lx(%pGp)%s\n", type, head->flags, &head->flags, mm/memory-failure.c: pr_info("soft offline: %#lx: %s migration failed %d, type %lx (%pGp)\n", mm/memory-failure.c: pr_info("soft offline: %#lx: %s isolation failed, page count %d, type %lx (%pGp)\n", mm/memory-failure.c: pr_info("%s: %#lx: unknown page type: %lx (%pGp)\n", mm/page_owner.c: "PFN %lu type %s Block %lu type %s Flags %#lx(%pGp)\n", Wouldn't it be more sensible just to put this code in a new function call in mm?