# Re: \[PATCH\] percpu: improve percpu\_alloc\_percpu\_fail event trace

- From: Dennis Zhou \<dennis@kernel.org\>
- Date: 2024-01-24 08:13:15 
- List: linux-trace-kernel
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-trace-kernel/2024/01/2469849
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-trace-kernel/2024/01/2465821/t.md

```text
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 [ref] 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
```