Re: [PATCH 2/5] mm/resource: move HMM pr_debug() deeper into resource code

[Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>]

On 1/25/19 1:18 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 5:21 PM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> diff -puN kernel/resource.c~move-request_region-check kernel/resource.c
>> --- a/kernel/resource.c~move-request_region-check       2019-01-24 15:13:14.453199539 -0800
>> +++ b/kernel/resource.c 2019-01-24 15:13:14.458199539 -0800
>> @@ -1123,6 +1123,16 @@ struct resource * __request_region(struc
>>                 conflict = __request_resource(parent, res);
>>                 if (!conflict)
>>                         break;
>> +               /*
>> +                * mm/hmm.c reserves physical addresses which then
>> +                * become unavailable to other users.  Conflicts are
>> +                * not expected.  Be verbose if one is encountered.
>> +                */
>> +               if (conflict->desc == IORES_DESC_DEVICE_PRIVATE_MEMORY) {
>> +                       pr_debug("Resource conflict with unaddressable "
>> +                                "device memory at %#010llx !\n",
>> +                                (unsigned long long)start);
> 
> I don't object to the change, but are you really OK with this being a
> pr_debug() message that is only emitted when enabled via either the
> dynamic debug mechanism or DEBUG being defined?  From the comments, it
> seems more like a KERN_INFO sort of message.

I left it consistent with the original message that was in the code.
I'm happy to change it, though, if the consumers of it (Jerome,
basically) want something different.

> Also, maybe the message would be more useful if it included the
> conflicting resource as well as the region you're requesting?  Many of
> the other callers of request_resource_conflict() have something like
> this:
> 
>   dev_err(dev, "resource collision: %pR conflicts with %s %pR\n",
>         new, conflict->name, conflict);

Seems sane.  I was just trying to change as little as possible.