Re: [PATCH net-next] trace: tcp: Add tracepoint for tcp_sendmsg()

[David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>]

On 2/26/25 11:27 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 7:18 PM Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org> 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 ?

tcp_sendmsg_locked should not be getting inlined; it is the
sendmsg_locked handler and directly called by several subsystems.

ie., moving the tracepoint to tcp_sendmsg_locked should solve the inline
problem. From there, the question is inside the loop or at entry to the
function. Inside the loop has been very helpful for me.