Re: [PATCH v4 tip/perf/core 0/4] uprobes,mm: speculative lockless VMA-to-uprobe lookup

Ingo Molnar
2024-11-21T09:33:43Z

* Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is this about Liao's siglock patch set? We are at v4 (!) already (see
> [0]) with Oleg's Acked-by added.

AFAICS you didn't Cc: me to -v3 and -v4 - and while I'll generally see
those patches too, eventually, there's a delay.

> > Andrii did get some other uprobes scalability work merged in v6.13:
> >
> > - Switch to RCU Tasks Trace flavor for better performance
> > (Andrii Nakryiko)
> >
> > - Massively increase uretprobe SMP scalability by
> > SRCU-protecting the uretprobe lifetime (Andrii Nakryiko)
> >
> > So we've certainly not been ignoring his patches, to the contrary
> > ...
>
> Yes, and as I mentioned, this one is a) ready, reviewed, tested and
> b) complements the other work you mention.

Sorry, but patchsets that didn't even build a few weeks before the
development window closed are generally pushed further down the
backlog. Think of this as rate-limiting the risk of potentially broken
code entering the kernel. You can avoid this problem by doing more
testing, or by accepting that sometimes one more cycle is needed to get
your patchsets merged.

> [...] It removes mmap_lock which limits scalability of the rest of
> the work. Is there some rule that I get to land only two patch sets
> in a single release?

Your facetous question and the hostile tone of your emails is not
appreciated.

Me pointing out that two other patchsets of yours got integrated simply
demonstrates how your original complaint of an 'ignore list' is not
just unprofessional on its face, but also demonstrably unfair:

> > > > I'm not sure what's going on here, this patch set seems to be
> > > > in some sort of "ignore list" on Peter's side with no
> > > > indication on its destiny.

Trying to pressure maintainers over a patchset that recently had build
failures isn't going to get your patches applied faster.

Thanks,

Ingo