Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 14 Nov 2022 12:23:06 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Jianlin Lv <iecedge@gmail.com>
Cc:     alison.schofield@intel.com, davidgow@google.com,
        thunder.leizhen@huawei.com, jianlv@ebay.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracepoint: Allow livepatch module add trace event
Message-ID: <20221114122255.72588f45@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20221102160236.11696-1-iecedge@gmail.com>
References: <20221102160236.11696-1-iecedge@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Wed,  2 Nov 2022 16:02:36 +0000
Jianlin Lv <iecedge@gmail.com> wrote:

> In the case of keeping the system running, the preferred method for
> tracing the kernel is dynamic tracing (kprobe), but the drawback of
> this method is that events are lost, especially when tracing packages
> in the network stack.

I'm not against this change, but the above is where I'm a bit confused. How
are events more likely to be lost with kprobes over a static event?

-- Steve