Hello Thomas, On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 03:31:50PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, Mar 15 2021 at 16:44, Eugeniu Rosca wrote: > > From: Dirk Behme <[email protected]> > > > > In case this BUG() is hit, it helps debugging a lot to get an idea > > what tasklet is the root cause. So, be slightly more verbose here. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dirk Behme <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Eugeniu Rosca <[email protected]> > > --- > > kernel/softirq.c | 8 ++++++-- > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/softirq.c b/kernel/softirq.c > > index 9908ec4a9bfe..a6b602ad48d6 100644 > > --- a/kernel/softirq.c > > +++ b/kernel/softirq.c > > @@ -550,9 +550,13 @@ static void tasklet_action_common(struct > > softirq_action *a, > > > > if (tasklet_trylock(t)) { > > if (!atomic_read(&t->count)) { > > - if (!test_and_clear_bit(TASKLET_STATE_SCHED, > > - &t->state)) > > + if (!test_and_clear_bit(TASKLET_STATE_SCHED, > > &t->state)) { > > + if (t->use_callback) > > + pr_emerg("tasklet failed, cb: > > %pS\n", t->callback); > > + else > > + pr_emerg("tasklet failed, func: > > %pS\n", t->func); > > BUG(); > > + } > > if (t->use_callback) > > t->callback(t); > > else > > This belongs into unreadable land and actually the BUG() should just be > replaced by a WARN_ONCE(). Something like the below. Hmm?
Many thanks for the quick and constructive reply. If no other comments in the next days, I will resubmit your proposal as v2, marked with 'Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>'. Alternatively, feel free to author the patch and submit it with us in Cc. Thanks again. -- Best regards, Eugeniu Rosca
