From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81779728 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 01:45:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0E83E9 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 01:45:32 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 21:45:30 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Linus Torvalds Message-ID: <20170629214530.5257f420@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: References: <152520246.5707.1498771254819.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <20170629195537.534445e7@gandalf.local.home> <20170629203224.6bf7f29a@gandalf.local.home> <20170629205218.5b9a7923@gandalf.local.home> <20170629211641.5aeb3af7@gandalf.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ksummit , Peter Zijlstra , Julien Desfossez , daolivei , bristot , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] Pulling away from the tracing ABI quicksands List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 18:38:11 -0700 Linus Torvalds wrote: > Why can't you just attach some eBPF script to the one tracepoint you > already have? I know that has been at least discussed, and it seems to > be the only reasonable way forward, since the existing thing clearly > isn't working. I like the eBPF idea, unfortunately it suffers the same fate. It only has access to fields that have been exported via the tracepoint. Now we are back to what fields are we going to make visible, and what happens when they no longer make sense? I guess you can argue that we need to keep modifying that eBPF script, for each kernel release. -- Steve