On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 6:29 PM Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Joe is also cc'ed in this patchset, I will sync up with him on the status of trace map work. Alexei, do we have potentially other variants of tp? We can make the current u16 sleepable a flag, so we can reuse this flag later when we have another type of tracepoints.
