Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 2 Aug 2023 22:48:49 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Ze Gao <zegao2021@gmail.com>
Cc:     Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-trace-devel@vger.kernel.org, Ze Gao <zegao@tencent.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 5/7] sched, tracing: add to report task state in
 symbolic chars
Message-ID: <20230802224849.215b96b0@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <CAD8CoPDUkUOc8_p8Ygnoy6xfQZtPhiDDPgnhTMfoEtmrQFRwMw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20230802121116.324604-1-zegao@tencent.com>
        <20230802121116.324604-6-zegao@tencent.com>
        <20230802110701.5227346d@gandalf.local.home>
        <CAD8CoPDUkUOc8_p8Ygnoy6xfQZtPhiDDPgnhTMfoEtmrQFRwMw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 10:38:43 +0800
Ze Gao <zegao2021@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > +static inline char __trace_sched_switch_state_char(bool preempt,
> > > +                                                unsigned int prev_state,
> > > +                                                struct task_struct *p)
> > > +{
> > > +     long state;
> > > +
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG
> > > +     BUG_ON(p != current);  
> >
> > BUG? Why not WARN_ON()?  
> 
> I directly copied it from __trace_sched_switch_state since they
> are very similar. I had doubt on this too but decided to keep it in
> case people want to be 100% sure that the current task is exactly
> the one that is being switched, otherwise it's a fatal problem for
> scheduler at the point where trace_sched_switch is called.
> 
> If you think WARN_ON_ONCE is more appropriate, I can fix both
> in v6.
> 
> Thoughts?

Yeah, that BUG_ON is from 2014, and really should not BUG.

I'd fix both.

Thanks!

-- Steve