On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 8:45 AM Takeru Hayasaka <[email protected]> wrote: > > Understood. I was a bit surprised to read that this area ended up taking > months of follow-up work.... > > One thing I am still trying to understand is what the preferred > debuggability/observability direction would be for existing > tailcall-heavy BPF/XDP deployments. > > Tail calls are already used in practice as a program decomposition > mechanism, especially in XDP pipelines, and that leaves tail-called leaf > programs harder to observe today. > > If fentry on tail-called programs is not something you'd want upstream, > is there another direction you would recommend for improving > observability/debuggability of such existing deployments?
You don't need fentry to debug. perf works just fine on all bpf progs whether tailcall or not. Also pls don't top post.
