On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 7:18 PM Breno Leitao <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello David, > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 10:12:08AM -0700, David Ahern wrote: > > On 2/26/25 9:10 AM, Breno Leitao wrote: > > >> Also, if a tracepoint is added, inside of tcp_sendmsg_locked would cover > > >> more use cases (see kernel references to it). > > > > > > Agree, this seems to provide more useful information > > > > > >> We have a patch for a couple years now with a tracepoint inside the > > > > > > Sorry, where do you have this patch? is it downstream? > > > > company tree. Attached. Where to put tracepoints and what arguments to > > supply so that it is beneficial to multiple users is always a touchy > > subject :-) > > Thanks. I would like to state that this would be useful for Meta as > well. > > Right now, we (Meta) are using nasty `noinline` attribute in > tcp_sendmsg() in order to make the API stable, and this tracepoint would > solve this problem avoiding the `noinline` hack. So, at least two type > of users would benefit from it. > > > so I have not tried to push the patch out. sock arg should > > be added to it for example. > > True, if it becomes a tracepoint instead of a rawtracepoint, the sock > arg might be useful. > > How would you recommend me proceeding in this case?
In 2022, Menglong Dong added __fix_address Then later , Yafang Shao added noinline_for_tracing . Would one of them be sufficient ?
