From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id vS9qJE8IXGQSFQYAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 10 May 2023 17:10:39 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 873921E11D; Wed, 10 May 2023 17:10:39 -0400 (EDT) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=lists.lttng.org header.i=@lists.lttng.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=Ed0JaFtM; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from lists.lttng.org (lists.lttng.org [167.114.26.123]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8B381E0D4 for ; Wed, 10 May 2023 17:10:38 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=lists.lttng.org; s=default; t=1683753038; bh=rsIDzFVJqMlGF9PI8Q9isLUdgmYSvDCOCP+BHr3NWns=; h=To:Date:Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc:From; b=Ed0JaFtMEX2WUGOhxn9x3WvvF8t0tisIMuN9C8uOK7eCS6jgwOzxeTjZgjP3/u1KP rLAT1QR8TNQXAY1sthOcYWvzuf4o//qkG1eJLYMkD9uTqT9E3w0n0FM69U/peimr78 4UjHeqH5cp6SSv9sDSV57rUei8h+HZIYxD1dGZppMNheZwURTABoQ5nFlAeFcU/oxl 0XYbRF/45SIcWRa2bTGF24cwvxYuATqI0c40ZT0VcvU1bj+CSJvr4wJwH9mXYR9blI XGMhtoKAo63h8d6ks1C2yw4ZaTCrOX/txw5yhF9W8nps9ANgLN32BHbnJSuHnacri8 C9kXcPPpuMQIw== Received: from lists-lttng01.efficios.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.lttng.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4QGnk6148dzSQT; Wed, 10 May 2023 17:10:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpout.efficios.com (smtpout.efficios.com [167.114.26.122]) by lists.lttng.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4QGnk30lTZzSbX for ; Wed, 10 May 2023 17:10:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (modemcable094.169-200-24.mc.videotron.ca [24.200.169.94]) by smtpout.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4QGnjv6Vq1z11sy; Wed, 10 May 2023 17:10:27 -0400 (EDT) To: lttng-dev Organization: EfficiOS Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 17:10:27 -0400 Message-ID: <87v8gzuc3g.fsf@laura> MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [lttng-dev] [RFC] Deprecating RCU signal flavor X-BeenThere: lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: LTTng development list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Olivier Dion via lttng-dev Reply-To: Olivier Dion Cc: "Paul E . McKenney" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: lttng-dev-bounces@lists.lttng.org Sender: "lttng-dev" Hi all, We have the intention of deprecating the urcu-signal flavor in the future. We are asking users of URCU for _feedback_ on this before going any further. Part of this decision is that we are adding support for TSAN in URCU and the signal flavor deadlocks with TSAN. It is also my understanding that the urcu-signal flavor was historically made as a fallback for system lacking the membarrier(2) system call. Nowadays, most systems have support for that system call, making the urcu-signal an artifact of the past. The following is a proposed timeline of events: 1. Asking for feedback from users of URCU (this message) 2. Disabling the signal flavor by default and adding --enable-flavor-signal 3. Removing the signal flavor -- Olivier Dion EfficiOS Inc. https://www.efficios.com _______________________________________________ lttng-dev mailing list lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev