On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 02:28:13PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > @@ -1814,7 +1822,7 @@ static int dup_utask(struct task_struct > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > *n = *o; > > - get_uprobe(n->uprobe); > > + __srcu_clone_read_lock(&uretprobes_srcu, n->srcu_idx); > > do we need to add this __srcu_clone_read_lock hack just to avoid > taking a refcount in dup_utask (i.e., on process fork)? This is not > that frequent and performance-sensitive case, so it seems like it > should be fine to take refcount and avoid doing srcu_read_unlock() in > a new process. Just like the case with long-running uretprobes where > you convert SRCU lock into refcount.
Yes, I suppose that is now possible too. But it makes the patches harder to split. Let me ponder that after I get it to pass your stress thing.
