* Jose R. Santos <jrs@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Agree. And they are details that can be fixed.
> [...] While it is true that static probes will provide less overhead > compared to dynamic probes, [...]
that is not true at all. Yes, an INT3 based kprobe might be expensive if +0.5 usecs per tracepoint (on a 1GHz CPU) is an issue to you - but that is "only" an implementation detail, not a conceptual property. Especially considering that help (djprobes) is on the way. And in the future, as more and more code gets generated (and regenerated) on the fly, dynamic probes will be _faster_ than static probes - plainly because they adapt better to the environment they plug into.
so there's basically nothing to balance. My point is that dynamic probes have won or will win on every front, and we shouldnt tie us down with static tracers. 5 years ago with no kprobes, had someone submitted a clean static tracer patchset, we could probably not have resisted it (i though probably would have resisted it on the grounds of maintainance overhead) and would have added it because tracing makes sense in general. But today there's just no reason to add static tracers anymore.Agree here as well. Sorry, I was also counting static markers as static tracepoint as well. Even with static markers, there need to be balance of what thing need to be implemented with markers vs those that can just be done dynamically.
NOTE: i still accept the temporary (or non-temporary) introduction of static markers, to help dynamic tracing. But my expectation is that these markers will be less intrusive than static tracepoints, and a lot more flexible.