On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 5:09 PM Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 3/2/22 1:30 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 1:23 PM Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 2/25/22 3:43 PM, Hao Luo wrote: > >>> Add a new type of bpf tracepoints: sleepable tracepoints, which allows > >>> the handler to make calls that may sleep. With sleepable tracepoints, a > >>> set of syscall helpers (which may sleep) may also be called from > >>> sleepable tracepoints. > >> > >> There are some old discussions on sleepable tracepoints, maybe > >> worthwhile to take a look. > >> > >> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210218222125.46565-5-mjeanson@xxxxxxxxxxxx/T/ > > > > Right. It's very much related, but obsolete too. > > We don't need any of that for sleeptable _raw_ tps. > > I prefer to stay with "sleepable" name as well to > > match the rest of the bpf sleepable code. > > In all cases it's faultable. > > sounds good to me. Agree that for the bpf user case, Hao's > implementation should be enough. Just remembered that we can also do trivial noinline __weak nop function and mark it sleepable on the verifier side. That's what we were planning to do to trace map update/delete ops in Joe Burton's series. Then we don't need to extend tp infra. I'm fine whichever way. I see pros and cons in both options.
