From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32E45C43219 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 14:17:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231396AbiKBORb (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Nov 2022 10:17:31 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42154 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231379AbiKBORa (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Nov 2022 10:17:30 -0400 Received: from ams.source.kernel.org (ams.source.kernel.org [145.40.68.75]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B340E27DFE; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 07:17:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ams.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DE86B82213; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 14:17:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C9108C433D6; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 14:17:20 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2022 10:17:19 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: Leonid Ravich , "mingo@redhat.com" , "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Yigal Korman , "linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Leon Ravich Subject: Re: BUG: ib_mad ftrace event unsupported migration Message-ID: <20221102101719.6cbcca6b@rorschach.local.home> In-Reply-To: References: <20221102074457.08f538a8@rorschach.local.home> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 11:04:44 -0300 Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > So this tracepoint is just wrong, you can't call a sleepable function > from a tracepoint like that? > > Presumably lockdep would/should warn about this? Why didn't it trigger a "scheduling while atomic" bug? That should happen if you call a sleeping function while preemption is disabled. Or does this function explicitly enable preemption? Which nothing checks if you enable preemption while recording to the ring buffer. I guess we could add that check, but this is not something that commonly happens enough to bother. -- Steve