Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] tracing: Introduce faultable tracepoints

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 02:18:29PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 10:47:42PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 03:54:14PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > When invoked from system call enter/exit instrumentation, accessing
> > > user-space data is a common use-case for tracers. However, tracepoints
> > > currently disable preemption around iteration on the registered
> > > tracepoint probes and invocation of the probe callbacks, which prevents
> > > tracers from handling page faults.
> > > 
> > > Extend the tracepoint and trace event APIs to allow defining a faultable
> > > tracepoint which invokes its callback with preemption enabled.
> > > 
> > > Also extend the tracepoint API to allow tracers to request specific
> > > probes to be connected to those faultable tracepoints. When the
> > > TRACEPOINT_MAY_FAULT flag is provided on registration, the probe
> > > callback will be called with preemption enabled, and is allowed to take
> > > page faults. Faultable probes can only be registered on faultable
> > > tracepoints and non-faultable probes on non-faultable tracepoints.
> > > 
> > > The tasks trace rcu mechanism is used to synchronize read-side
> > > marshalling of the registered probes with respect to faultable probes
> > > unregistration and teardown.
> > 
> > What is trace-trace rcu and why is it needed here? What's wrong with
> > SRCU ?
> 
> Tasks Trace RCU avoids SRCU's full barriers and the array accesses in the
> read-side primitives.  This can be important when tracing low-overhead
> components of fast paths.

So why wasn't SRCU improved? That is, the above doesn't much explain.

What is the trade-off made to justify adding yet another RCU flavour?