On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 11:52:20AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 18:19:53 -0700 > Kalesh Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Steve, > > > > Thanks for the comments and suggestion you are right we can use bpf to > > get the comm. There is nothing special about this trace event. I will > > drop comm in the next revision. > > > > The reason I did the task_struct parameter (current): I believe there > > is a limitation that we must specify at least 1 parameter to the > > TRACE_EVENT() PROTO and ARGS macros. > > OK, then this is another issue. We don't want tracepoint "markers". > Each tracepoint can take up to 5K in memory due to the code it > generates and the meta data to control it. > > For something like that, we highly recommend dynamic probes (fprobes, > kprobes, etc). > > The only purpose of a static tracepoint is to get data within a > function that is too difficult to get via a probe. It should never be > used as a trigger where its purpose is "we hit this path". >
Isn't the usual problem with that approach, that of static functions/static inline functions? I was tracing through a problem a few months ago, and man I really did think "wouldn't it be nice to have a tracepoint instead of fishing around for kprobe spots". Not that I particularly think a tracepoint is super worth it in this case, but, y'know. -- Pedro
