Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] vsprintf: dump full information of page flags in pGp

[Joe Perches]

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?