From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from stravinsky.debian.org (stravinsky.debian.org [82.195.75.108]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B38503CCFBD; Tue, 12 May 2026 07:49:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=82.195.75.108 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778572145; cv=none; b=nqrHol62uwzvGVrsPJkK6RrPUQymEPq9ziwKrUTNV5NG4vJsKx90XA9jF3mV/0R7sZSsXBuJoDi04JEEJ28AxdrecMIG+kPRhi91i20zi4awg9GIwtkEgL9KOB0OS3WsvCn3Xb7hhRClsBMKkuxJ4Wpif2X1mrr0I1aj9N062TU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778572145; c=relaxed/simple; bh=L9Je9p6iKz0LhJs2B2OBOVnKx7GVs/d3t4vLkYEhSok=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=fG2ydDhaGtCvI/FMOYmm1fGQM5xleHWHCre16uke3+dVmgmg8j4PcIHYSfapi+QmYkVBpjIoPBWIUaGqak2ceeC1Seho197K0BePEdCK52FKyng8JQC5RvYLQJu7GC0cG6x+f19yvYtloaYtxaJ8ZdUXTeEiX1fBa1GJx4Q7K8g= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=debian.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=debian.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=debian.org header.i=@debian.org header.b=e76ZAj6c; arc=none smtp.client-ip=82.195.75.108 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=debian.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=debian.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=debian.org header.i=@debian.org header.b="e76ZAj6c" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=debian.org; s=smtpauto.stravinsky; h=X-Debian-User:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=L9Je9p6iKz0LhJs2B2OBOVnKx7GVs/d3t4vLkYEhSok=; b=e76ZAj6cq9wK8LolMqLtOiipXB N0kHt9swwcOBhSpr0VVJrOWwxxqVm7oztBxdbf5Dyl2AFH547HkdGDAGZCPc3J30LVvCj08AZ7QBs KlqhGZwml1BBrGa/JaEsnm0D0MVsH+wh7W+kiW8E+O1mUQ1W1wwj40xAvCRQJTbQBF3QLKXxrpgym Mj3VB02DVvDanDw11w9pDBKvlqTCdeNlZ6T8KBTyrQST1YypIKh6zJA3g9DKZOsQMEUkSml0D7g/v 0QKsdOFS3rwVMNXRnL3auGlrkBeSRarMwPSAb1CsgHW8eVZ12SYOIpo93dOFdDVrKGbjGuI6sJZ/i S0N3VYIg==; Received: from authenticated user by stravinsky.debian.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wMhrD-002E10-01; Tue, 12 May 2026 07:48:47 +0000 Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 00:48:39 -0700 From: Breno Leitao To: Gustavo Luiz Duarte Cc: Joel Fernandes , "Paul E. McKenney" , Frederic Weisbecker , Neeraj Upadhyay , Josh Triplett , Boqun Feng , Uladzislau Rezki , Steven Rostedt , Mathieu Desnoyers , Lai Jiangshan , Zqiang , Vlastimil Babka , Harry Yoo , Andrew Morton , Hao Li , Christoph Lameter , David Rientjes , Roman Gushchin , rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] rcu: Add debugfs interface for pending callback monitoring Message-ID: References: <20260507-rcu-pending-cbs-stats-v1-0-8f4eb3553bc9@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Debian-User: leitao On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 06:08:53PM +0100, Gustavo Luiz Duarte wrote: > > You actually don't need debugfs for this. You can just use bpftrace and > > instrument trace_rcu_ (with other RCU tracing Kconfig options enabled?). I had > > something like that working sometime ago. > > My initial attempt to do this using tracepoints was probing > trace_rcu_segcb_stats, but this would add significant overhead to > every callback enqueue/dequeue event which is too expensive for a > production environment An additional benefit of this debugfs-based approach is that it eliminates the dependency on bpftrace and custom scripts. While instrumenting tracepoints with bpftrace is certainly feasible for a limited number of servers, deploying it fleet-wide becomes problematic. It requires distributing and maintaining additional binaries on every host, just to collect metrics that a few lines of kernel code can expose more efficiently. So while bpftrace can technically accomplish this, it may not be the most appropriate solution for this particular use case.