[PATCH] x86: Use printk_once() instead of opencoding it

[PATCH] x86: Use printk_once() instead of opencoding it

[Andrew Cooper]

Technically our helper post-dates all of these examples, but it's good cleanup
nevertheless.  None of these examples should be using fully locked
test_and_set_bool() in the first place.

No functional change.

Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
---
CC: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
CC: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com>
CC: Wei Liu <wl@xen.org>
CC: Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@intel.com>
CC: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
---
 xen/arch/x86/cpu/amd.c     | 22 ++++++++--------------
 xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c | 18 ++++++------------
 xen/arch/x86/srat.c        |  8 ++------
 xen/arch/x86/time.c        | 19 ++++---------------
 4 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)

diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/amd.c b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/amd.c
index caafe4474021..630adead2fc1 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/amd.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/amd.c
@@ -1061,25 +1061,19 @@ static void cf_check init_amd(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
 
 		rdmsrl(MSR_AMD64_LS_CFG, value);
 		if (!(value & (1 << 15))) {
-			static bool_t warned;
-
-			if (c == &boot_cpu_data || opt_cpu_info ||
-			    !test_and_set_bool(warned))
-				printk(KERN_WARNING
-				       "CPU%u: Applying workaround for erratum 793\n",
-				       smp_processor_id());
+			if (c == &boot_cpu_data || opt_cpu_info)
+				printk_once(XENLOG_WARNING
+					    "CPU%u: Applying workaround for erratum 793\n",
+					    smp_processor_id());
 			wrmsrl(MSR_AMD64_LS_CFG, value | (1 << 15));
 		}
 	} else if (c->x86 == 0x12) {
 		rdmsrl(MSR_AMD64_DE_CFG, value);
 		if (!(value & (1U << 31))) {
-			static bool warned;
-
-			if (c == &boot_cpu_data || opt_cpu_info ||
-			    !test_and_set_bool(warned))
-				printk(KERN_WARNING
-				       "CPU%u: Applying workaround for erratum 665\n",
-				       smp_processor_id());
+			if (c == &boot_cpu_data || opt_cpu_info)
+				printk_once(XENLOG_WARNING
+					    "CPU%u: Applying workaround for erratum 665\n",
+					    smp_processor_id());
 			wrmsrl(MSR_AMD64_DE_CFG, value | (1U << 31));
 		}
 	}
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
index 096c69251d58..0f392fc0d4fe 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
@@ -1183,16 +1183,11 @@ static void cf_check vmx_get_segment_register(
      */
     if ( unlikely(!vmx_vmcs_try_enter(v)) )
     {
-        static bool_t warned;
+        printk_once(XENLOG_WARNING "Segment register inaccessible for %pv\n"
+                    "(If you see this outside of debugging activity,"
+                    " please report to xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org)\n",
+                    v);
 
-        if ( !warned )
-        {
-            warned = 1;
-            printk(XENLOG_WARNING "Segment register inaccessible for %pv\n"
-                   "(If you see this outside of debugging activity,"
-                   " please report to xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org)\n",
-                   v);
-        }
         memset(reg, 0, sizeof(*reg));
         return;
     }
@@ -2301,10 +2296,9 @@ static bool cf_check vmx_test_pir(const struct vcpu *v, uint8_t vec)
 static void cf_check vmx_handle_eoi(uint8_t vector, int isr)
 {
     uint8_t old_svi = set_svi(isr);
-    static bool warned;
 
-    if ( vector != old_svi && !test_and_set_bool(warned) )
-        printk(XENLOG_WARNING "EOI for %02x but SVI=%02x\n", vector, old_svi);
+    if ( vector != old_svi )
+        printk_once(XENLOG_WARNING "EOI for %02x but SVI=%02x\n", vector, old_svi);
 }
 
 static void cf_check vmx_enable_msr_interception(struct domain *d, uint32_t msr)
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/srat.c b/xen/arch/x86/srat.c
index 56749ddca526..3f70338e6e23 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/srat.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/srat.c
@@ -55,7 +55,6 @@ nodeid_t setup_node(unsigned pxm)
 {
 	nodeid_t node;
 	unsigned idx;
-	static bool warned;
 	static unsigned nodes_found;
 
 	BUILD_BUG_ON(MAX_NUMNODES >= NUMA_NO_NODE);
@@ -75,11 +74,8 @@ nodeid_t setup_node(unsigned pxm)
 		if (pxm2node[idx].node == NUMA_NO_NODE)
 			goto finish;
 
-	if (!warned) {
-		printk(KERN_WARNING "SRAT: Too many proximity domains (%#x)\n",
-		       pxm);
-		warned = true;
-	}
+	printk_once(XENLOG_WARNING "SRAT: Too many proximity domains (%#x)\n",
+		    pxm);
 
 	return NUMA_NO_NODE;
 
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/time.c b/xen/arch/x86/time.c
index bc75e1ae7d42..f5e30d4e0236 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/time.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/time.c
@@ -876,13 +876,8 @@ static void cf_check plt_overflow(void *unused)
         plt_stamp64 += plt_mask + 1;
     }
     if ( i != 0 )
-    {
-        static bool warned_once;
-
-        if ( !test_and_set_bool(warned_once) )
-            printk("Platform timer appears to have unexpectedly wrapped "
-                   "%u%s times.\n", i, (i == 10) ? " or more" : "");
-    }
+        printk_once("Platform timer appears to have unexpectedly wrapped "
+                    "%u%s times.\n", i, (i == 10) ? " or more" : "");
 
     spin_unlock_irq(&platform_timer_lock);
 
@@ -2156,14 +2151,8 @@ void init_percpu_time(void)
         }
         else if ( adj != tsc_adjust[socket] )
         {
-            static bool __read_mostly warned;
-
-            if ( !warned )
-            {
-                warned = true;
-                printk(XENLOG_WARNING
-                       "Differing TSC ADJUST values within socket(s) - fixing all\n");
-            }
+            printk_once(XENLOG_WARNING
+                        "Differing TSC ADJUST values within socket(s) - fixing all\n");
             wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_TSC_ADJUST, tsc_adjust[socket]);
         }
     }

base-commit: 31c65549746179e16cf3f82b694b4b1e0b7545ca
-- 
2.30.2

Re: [PATCH] x86: Use printk_once() instead of opencoding it

[Jan Beulich]

On 10.05.2023 21:33, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> Technically our helper post-dates all of these examples, but it's good cleanup
> nevertheless.  None of these examples should be using fully locked
> test_and_set_bool() in the first place.
> 
> No functional change.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>

Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>

RE: [PATCH] x86: Use printk_once() instead of opencoding it

[Tian, Kevin]

> From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 3:34 AM
> 
> Technically our helper post-dates all of these examples, but it's good cleanup
> nevertheless.  None of these examples should be using fully locked
> test_and_set_bool() in the first place.
> 
> No functional change.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>

Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>