News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on BPF Theremin, Tetris, and Typewriters. Parent comment

Re:BPF Theremin, Tetris, and Typewriters by brendangregg on Sunday December 22, 2019 @10:54PM (#21861378)
That and user stack traces.

For many of the kernel tracing tools, I'll add user stack traces as needed for the user context. TCP connections and latency _with_ the Java code paths responsible; ditto for disk I/O, memory growth, lock contention, etc. If you've ever had a network problem, a disk I/O problem, a memory problem, etc, BPF can give you new insights that are unavailable from user-space tooling.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:BPF Theremin, Tetris, and Typewriters by denormalfloat on Sunday December 22, 2019 @11:13PM (#21861444)
But that's also why BPF doesn't seem to have a place in this world. Anything surfaced by a BPF program should probably be surfaced by a proper kernel module or syscall. As far as I can tell, the utility of BPF tracing is solely between the time a bug comes up, and a few weeks later when a kernel upgrade exposes this info anyways.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:BPF Theremin, Tetris, and Typewriters by rhinoceraptor on Monday December 23, 2019 @02:03AM (#21861967)
Neither of your suggestions really get at the point of eBPF. That is, to safely (goodbye kernel modules) and dynamically (goodbye syscalls) instrument the kernel.
[ Parent | on HN ]