On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 03:48:32PM +0100, Usama Saqib wrote: > Thanks for your reply. It is correct that the problem I shared is > already present under PREEMPT_FULL, and as such there is no new issue > being introduced by PREEMPT_LAZY. > > My main concern is that if PREEMPT_LAZY is intended to become the > default mode (please correct me if I am wrong here) before this > problem is addressed in the BPF subsystem, then this would result in a > big regression for us. This is especially true if distros pick up the > changes in the intervening period. I wanted to draw attention to this > issue so this situation does not happen. Fair enough; I think it'll be a few releases before LAZY is in any shape to be considered a replacement in any case. Quite a lot of cond_resched (ab)use needs to be audited, Live-patching needs a bit of TLC and so on.
