On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 12:04:51 -0800 Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]> wrote:
> The diff has nothing to do with bpf needs and/or bpf internals. > It's really about being a good citizen of PREEMP_RT. > bpf side already does migrate_disable, > rcu_read_lock, srcu_fast/task_trace when necessary. > Most of the time we don't rely on any external preempt state or rcu/srcu. > Removing guard(preempt_notrace)(); from tracepoint invocation > would be just fine for bpf. Simple remove will trigger bug > on cant_sleep(), but that's a trivial fix. Oh, so you are OK replacing the preempt_disable in the tracepoint callbacks with fast SRCU? Then I guess we can simply do that. Would it be fine to do that for both RT and non-RT? That will simplify the code quite a bit. -- Steve
