> On Feb 4, 2025, at 5:44 PM, Prakash Sangappa <prakash.sangappa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Feb 1, 2025, at 10:11 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Feb 01, 2025 at 07:47:32AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: >>> >>> >>> On February 1, 2025 6:59:06 AM EST, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> I still have full hate for this approach. >>> >>> So what approach would you prefer? >> >> The one that does not rely on the preemption method -- I think I posted >> something along those line, and someone else recently reposted something >> bsaed on it. > > Here is the RFC I had sent that Peter is referring FWIW, I second the idea of a new syscall for this than (ab)using rseq and also independence from preemption method. I agree that something generic is better than relying on preemption method. thanks, - Joel > Tying things to the preemption method is absurdly bad design -- and I've >> told you that before. >> >
