On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 13:04:21 -0700 Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > AFAIU eBPF folks are very eager to start making use of this, so we won't > > have to wait long. > > I already gave my ack on BPF parts of this patch set, but I'll > elaborate a bit more here for the record. There seems to be two things > that's been discussed. > > First, preempt_disable() vs migrate_disable(). We only need the > latter, but the former just preserves current behavior and I think > it's fine, we can follow up with BPF-specific bits later to optimize > and clean this up further. No big deal. > > Second, whether BPF can utilize sleepable (faultable) tracepoints > right now with these changes. No, we need a bit more work (again, in > BPF specific parts) to allow faultable tracepoint attachment for BPF > programs. But it's a bit nuanced piece of code to get everything > right, and it's best done by someone more familiar with BPF internals. > So I wouldn't expect Mathieu to do this either. > > So, tl;dr, I think patches are fine as-is (from BPF perspective), and > we'd like to see them applied and get to bpf-next for further > development on top of that. Thanks Andrii for elaborating. -- Steve
