[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240807132922.GC27715@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 15:29:22 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, mhiramat@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jolsa@...nel.org, paulmck@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] uprobes: RCU-protected hot path optimizations
On 07/31, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> Andrii Nakryiko (6):
> uprobes: revamp uprobe refcounting and lifetime management
> uprobes: protected uprobe lifetime with SRCU
> uprobes: get rid of enum uprobe_filter_ctx in uprobe filter callbacks
> uprobes: travers uprobe's consumer list locklessly under SRCU
> protection
> uprobes: perform lockless SRCU-protected uprobes_tree lookup
> uprobes: switch to RCU Tasks Trace flavor for better performance
>
> Peter Zijlstra (2):
> rbtree: provide rb_find_rcu() / rb_find_add_rcu()
> perf/uprobe: split uprobe_unregister()
I see nothing wrong in 1-7. LGTM.
But since you are going to send the new version, I'd like to apply V2
and then try to re-check the resulting code.
As for 8/8 - I leave it to you and Peter. I'd prefer SRCU though ;)
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists