On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 6:45 AM Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2026-01-08 22:05, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]> > [...] > > I disagree with many elements of the proposed approach. > > On one end we have BPF wanting to hook on arbitrary tracepoints without > adding significant latency to PREEMPT RT kernels. > > One the other hand, we have high-speed tracers which execute very short > critical sections to serialize trace data into ring buffers. > > All of those users register to the tracepoint API. > > We also have to consider that migrate disable is *not* cheap at all > compared to preempt disable.
Looks like your complaint comes from lack of engagement in kernel development. migrate_disable _was_ not cheap. Try to benchmark it now. It's inlined. It's a fraction of extra overhead on top of preempt_disable.
