Re: [PATCH 00/10] perf/uprobe: Optimize uprobes

[Andrii Nakryiko]

On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 7:56 AM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 12:10:03 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 07:10:46AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >
> > > > FFS :-/ That touches all sorts and doesn't have any perf ack on. Masami
> > > > what gives?
> > >
> > > This is managing *probes and related dynamic trace-events. Those has been
> > > moved from tip. Could you also add linux-trace-kernel@vger ML to CC?
> >
> > ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f kernel/events/uprobes.c
> >
> > disagrees with that, also things like:
> >
> >   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/trace/linux-trace.git/commit/?h=probes/for-next&id=4a365eb8a6d9940e838739935f1ce21f1ec8e33f
> >
> > touch common perf stuff, and very much would require at least an ack
> > from the perf folks.
>
> Hmm, indeed. I'm OK to pass those patches (except for trace_uprobe things)
> to -tip if you can.
>
> >
> > Not cool.
>

You were aware of this patch and cc'ed personally (just like
linux-perf-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) on all revisions of it. I addressed
your concerns in [0], you went silent after that and patches were
sitting idle for more than a month.

But regardless, if you'd like me to do any adjustments, please let me know.

  [0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAEf4Bzazi7YMz9n0V46BU7xthQjNdQL_zma5vzgCm_7C-_CvmQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/

> Yeah, the probe things are boundary.
> BTW, IMHO, there could be dependency issues on *probes. Those are usually used
> by ftrace/perf/bpf, which are managed by different trees. This means a series
> can span multiple trees. Mutually reviewing is the solution?
>

I agree, there is no one best tree for stuff like this. So as long as
relevant people and mailing lists are CC'ed we hopefully should be
fine?

> Thank you,
>
> --
> Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>