On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 5:32 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 13:32:41 -0700 > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Just curious, why is the "rude" version better than SRCU? Seems the > > > schedule_on_each_cpu() would be much slower than SRCU especially if > > > there are 1000s of CPUs involved. Is there any reason that is a better > > > alternative? > > > > The rude version has much faster readers, and the story I hear is that > > there are not expected to be all that many concurrent updaters. > > > > But to get more detail, why not ask Steven why he chose not to use SRCU? > > (I know the story for the BPF guys, and it is because of SRCU's read-side > > overhead.) > > Same for the function side (if not even more so). This would require adding > a srcu_read_lock() to all functions that can be traced! That would be a huge > kill in performance. Probably to the point no one would bother even using > function tracer. Point well taken! Thanks, -Joel