* Re: [PATCH] mcheck/therm_throt: Replace printk(KERN_XX...) with pr_xx(...)
[not found] ` <20160201081951.GA14977@gmail.com>
@ 2016-02-01 8:24 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-02-01 9:38 ` Borislav Petkov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Ingo Molnar @ 2016-02-01 8:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chen Yucong
Cc: hpa, tony.luck, bp, x86, linux-edac, linux-kernel,
Thomas Gleixner, Peter Zijlstra
(changed the subject to be lkml compatible. Mail quoted below.)
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> * Chen Yucong <slaoub@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This patch also has replaced one more printk_once() with pr_info_once().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chen Yucong <slaoub@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/therm_throt.c | 13 ++++++-------
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/therm_throt.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/therm_throt.c
> > index 2c5aaf8..6cc5eed 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/therm_throt.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/therm_throt.c
> > @@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ static int therm_throt_process(bool new_event, int event, int level)
> > /* if we just entered the thermal event */
> > if (new_event) {
> > if (event == THERMAL_THROTTLING_EVENT)
> > - printk(KERN_CRIT "CPU%d: %s temperature above threshold, cpu clock throttled (total events = %lu)\n",
> > + pr_crit("CPU%d: %s temperature above threshold, cpu clock throttled (total events = %lu)\n",
> > this_cpu,
> > level == CORE_LEVEL ? "Core" : "Package",
> > state->count);
> > @@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ static int therm_throt_process(bool new_event, int event, int level)
> > }
> > if (old_event) {
> > if (event == THERMAL_THROTTLING_EVENT)
> > - printk(KERN_INFO "CPU%d: %s temperature/speed normal\n",
> > + pr_info("CPU%d: %s temperature/speed normal\n",
> > this_cpu,
> > level == CORE_LEVEL ? "Core" : "Package");
> > return 1;
> > @@ -417,8 +417,7 @@ static void intel_thermal_interrupt(void)
> >
> > static void unexpected_thermal_interrupt(void)
> > {
> > - printk(KERN_ERR "CPU%d: Unexpected LVT thermal interrupt!\n",
> > - smp_processor_id());
> > + pr_err("CPU%d: Unexpected LVT thermal interrupt!\n", smp_processor_id());
> > }
> >
> > static void (*smp_thermal_vector)(void) = unexpected_thermal_interrupt;
> > @@ -499,7 +498,7 @@ void intel_init_thermal(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> >
> > if ((l & MSR_IA32_MISC_ENABLE_TM1) && (h & APIC_DM_SMI)) {
> > if (system_state == SYSTEM_BOOTING)
> > - printk(KERN_DEBUG "CPU%d: Thermal monitoring handled by SMI\n", cpu);
> > + pr_debug("CPU%d: Thermal monitoring handled by SMI\n", cpu);
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -557,8 +556,8 @@ void intel_init_thermal(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> > l = apic_read(APIC_LVTTHMR);
> > apic_write(APIC_LVTTHMR, l & ~APIC_LVT_MASKED);
> >
> > - printk_once(KERN_INFO "CPU0: Thermal monitoring enabled (%s)\n",
> > - tm2 ? "TM2" : "TM1");
> > + pr_info_once("CPU0: Thermal monitoring enabled (%s)\n",
> > + tm2 ? "TM2" : "TM1");
> >
> > /* enable thermal throttle processing */
> > atomic_set(&therm_throt_en, 1);
>
> So there are 37,000+ printk() calls in the kernel and 900+ ones in arch/x86/
> alone! Plus even after this patch there's 20 more printk()s left in
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/...
>
> We don't want to create a churn of 10,000+ commits to convert them to pr_*()
> facilities...
>
> So we don't apply such 'conversion' patches unless it's done for a whole subsystem
> and done as part of a larger work with good reason, or if it's done as part of
> completely new facilities/drivers - and is done consistently.
>
> Even then it's dubious to convert: people keep re-adding printk()s (which is a
> perfectly fine facility), which generates never ending churn ...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread