The prose isn't polished enough to be AI. AI generation is unlikely to produce missing spaces like "...which are not readable to humans.SDB uses eBPF ...", or grammatical inaccuracies like "Ensuring Fully Correctness".

As for the data race thing, it seems to me that there's a pretty clear distinction between rbspy's approach (as described in reference 1) and this blog post. rbspy is walking the native stack, which occasionally fails. SDB seems to be looking at Ruby's internals instead, and has some sort of generation-number design to identify cases where there was a data race.

Beyond that, this post just absolutely sounds like what somebody would write if they were trying to describe in prose why they think their multi-threaded code is correct, especially the "Scanning Stacks without the GVL" section.

First, I admitted I didn't describe the problem clearly. And now, I'd like to have some explanation.

In the intro, the issue with rbspy is that it reads invalid addresses, see this https://github.com/rbspy/rbspy/blob/8d501946f75335154c493473....

Data race refers to incorrect data, not an invalid address error.

And the citations, they are 2, one is the Ruby memory model(the third ref), and then a MIT course. I referred to this because it supposes 64-bit aligned memory reading is atomic, but I can't find other sources. And if you read the MIT course reference, you will see it's about RCU, and the RCU is valid only when 64-bit memory operations are atomic.

Yeah, sometimes, the compiler may compile a 64-bit memory access into two instructions, such as Rust, but it's not Ruby. It should be fine not consider this.