On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 03:17:01PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 3:12 PM Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 15:04:11 -0700 > > Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > How bad would it be to just move trace_sched_process_exit() then? (and > > > add group_dead there, as you mentioned)? > > > > I personally don't have an issue with that. In fact, the one place I used > > the sched_process_exit tracepoint, I had to change to use > > sched_process_free because it does too much after that. > > heh, I ran into that as well just recently and also had to use > sched_process_free instead of sched_process_exit, because between exit > and free we still can get sched_switch tracepoint trigger (so it's a > bit too early to clean up whatever per-task state I maintain in BPF > program). > > So yeah, I'm up for that as well, will send v2 just moving and > extending the existing tracepoint. Thanks!
+1, it'd be great to have the group_dead info, we also need to have some workarounds for that thanks, jirka > > > > > OK, let's just move the sched_process_exit tracepoint. It's in an arbitrary > > location anyway. > > > > -- Steve >
