Re: [RFC PATCH 00/20] rv: Add support for BPF monitors

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Fri, Sep 4, 2026 at 4:45 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 04 Sep 2026 16:34:00 -0700
> "Alexei Starovoitov" <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > bpf in 2022 was surely less capable then it is today.
> > It took us 2 years of bpf core development to statisfy sched-ext demands
> > and we're still adding new features for sched-ext needs.
> > If you're trully willing to remove 90% of kernel/trace/rv/ and refactor
> > it into tiny shim where all of the core pieces are bpf driven we can
> > certainly work together (like we did with sched-ext) and add whatever
> > is missing on bpf side. Then all existing monitors will become bpf programs.
> > But adding bpf as another 'monitor', sorry but hard NO.
> > If hardcoded monitors was a mistake then admit it and fix it by deleting it,
> > if it's not a mistake then keep adding hardcoded monitors.
>
> Regardless of whether or not BPF can replace "hardcoded monitors" today, it
> wasn't a mistake back then if BPF wasn't able to do it when they were first
> being added. sched_ext wanted to use BPF for scheduling as module plugins
> were nack'd by the scheduler maintainers for a long time. BPF programs to
> handle scheduling was the work-around to that, and basically the only way
> forward. And it still required special hooks into the scheduler.
>
> The rv monitors only needed to use tracepoints for hooks. A module was the
> easiest way to get there, as BPF at the time wasn't an option.
>
> If you want to use hostile language like "admit you made a mistake" then it
> makes it harder to collaborate.

If you're offended by the word "mistake" then ok. There is no path forward.
Keep adding hardcoded stuff.