Hello, On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 08:55:39PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 09:44:43 +0800 > George Guo <dongtai.guo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > There are two reasons of percpu_alloc failed without warnings: > > > > 1. do_warn is false > > 2. do_warn is true and warn_limit is reached the limit. > > Yes I know the reasons. > > > > > Showing do_warn and warn_limit makes things simple, maybe dont need > > kprobe again. > > It's up to the maintainers of that code to decide if it's worth it or not, > but honestly, my opinion it is not. > I agree, I don't think this is a worthwhile change. If we do change this, I'd like it to be more actionable in some way and as a result something we can fix or tune accordingly. George is this a common problem you're seeing? > The trace event in question is to trace that percpu_alloc failed and why. > It's not there to determine why it did not produce a printk message. > > -- Steve Thanks, Dennis
