From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 18:45:24 +0900 From: Sergey Senozhatsky To: Steven Rostedt Message-ID: <20170921094524.GF773@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain> References: <20170920095031.1972fba5@gandalf.local.home> <0C1E6F2D-2E7D-4477-9F35-8C59F62BB409@fb.com> <20170920150404.2x63t3bd4pkusoa3@destiny> <20170920111306.1a74f2ec@gandalf.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170920111306.1a74f2ec@gandalf.local.home> Cc: Josef Bacik , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org" , Peter Zijlstra , Josef Bacik Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC] tracepoints without user space interfaces List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hello, On (09/20/17 11:13), Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 11:04:05 -0400 > Josef Bacik wrote: > > > The tricky part is we want to be able to access these from eBPF. I argue that > > eBPF is run in the kernel so it has the same rules as kernel modules. Others > > seem less convinced of this argument, so it would be good to get a definitive > > answer. Thanks, > > Note, adding a module to let eBPF access these tracepoints would also > be trivial. Would a module be of issue at FB? It could be easily added > at boot up. JFI, seems that Josef's reply didn't make it to the ksummit-discuss list. I'm interested in this topic, tho. -ss