On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 03:29:35PM -0700, Blake Jones wrote: > On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 3:10 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hmmm. Is that documented and tested anywhere? Offhand it sounds like an > > > implementation detail that I wouldn't feel great about depending on - > > > certainly not without a strong guarantee that it wouldn't change. > > > > Good point. Maybe BPF folks have some idea? > > > > Anyway the current code generates them together in a function. > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/kernel/events/core.c?h=v6.15#n9825 > > It certainly does, yeah. But I don't want to have that become another > instance of https://www.hyrumslaw.com/. Thanks for sharing this. I'm curious about the semantics of the KSYMBOL and BPF_EVENT. And I feel like there should be a connection between them. Song and Jiri, what do you think? Thanks, Namhyung > > > > Can you say more about why the duplicated records concern you? > > > > More data means more chance to lost something. I don't expect this is > > gonna be a practical concern but in general we should pursue less data. > > That makes sense. In this case, it will only show up for BPF programs that > define "bpf_metadata_" variables (which is already an opt-in action), and > the number of variables a given program defines is likely to be quite small. > So I think the cost of the marginal increase in data generated is outweighed > by the usability and reliability benefits of being able to match these events > 1:1 with the KSYMBOL events. If this proves to be a problem in practice, > it can be revisited. > > Blake
