On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 14:59:33 -0400 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Wire up the system call tracepoints with Tasks Trace RCU to allow > the ftrace, perf, and eBPF tracers to handle page faults. > > This series does the initial wire-up allowing tracers to handle page > faults, but leaves out the actual handling of said page faults as future > work. > > I have tested this against a feature branch of lttng-modules which > implements handling of page faults for the filename argument of the > openat(2) system call. > > This v5 addresses comments from the previous round of review [1]. Hi Mathieu, Can you resend this and Cc linux-trace-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx? That would put it into our patchwork and makes it work with our workflow. https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-trace-kernel/list/ Thanks, -- Steve > > Steven Rostedt suggested separating tracepoints into two separate > sections. It is unclear how that approach would prove to be an > improvement over the currently proposed approach, so those changes were > not incorporated. See [2] for my detailed reply. > > In the previous round, Peter Zijlstra suggested use of SRCU rather than > Tasks Trace RCU. See my reply about the distinction between SRCU and > Tasks Trace RCU [3] and this explanation from Paul E. McKenney about the > purpose of Tasks Trace RCU [4]. > > The macros DEFINE_INACTIVE_GUARD and activate_guard are added to > cleanup.h for use in the __DO_TRACE() macro. Those appear to be more > flexible than the guard_if() proposed by Peter Zijlstra in the previous > round of review [5]. > > This series is based on kernel v6.9.6.
