Re: [PATCH RFC ftrace] Asynchronous grace period for register_ftrace_direct()

2024-04-03 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 03:29:12PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 11:53:14 -0700 > "Paul E. McKenney" wrote: > > > @@ -5366,6 +5366,13 @@ static void remove_direct_functions_hash(struct > > ftrace_hash *hash, unsigned long > > } > > } > > > > +static void register_ftrac

Re: [PATCH RFC ftrace] Asynchronous grace period for register_ftrace_direct()

2024-04-03 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 11:53:14 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" wrote: > @@ -5366,6 +5366,13 @@ static void remove_direct_functions_hash(struct > ftrace_hash *hash, unsigned long > } > } > > +static void register_ftrace_direct_cb(struct rcu_head *rhp) > +{ > + struct ftrace_hash *fhp = contain

[PATCH RFC ftrace] Asynchronous grace period for register_ftrace_direct()

2024-04-03 Thread Paul E. McKenney
Note that the immediate pressure for this patch should be relieved by the NAPI patch series [1], but this sort of problem could easily arise again. So would this change make sense? When running heavy test workloads with KASAN enabled, RCU Tasks grace periods can extend for many tens of seconds, si