On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 2:07 PM Mauricio Vásquez Bernal <mauricio@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Fixed up few things I pointed out in respective patches. Applied to > > bpf-next. Great work, congrats! > > Thanks a lot for all your patience and helpful reviews! > > > > > It would be great as a next step to add this as (probably optional at > > first) step for libbpf-tools in BCC repo, so that those CO-RE-based > > tools can be used much more widely than today. > > I like this idea. It'll also help us to understand and improve the way > to ship those files within the application. > > > How much work that > > would be, do you think? > > Probably the most difficult part is to embed the generated files into > the executable. I think generating a header file with the BTF info for > each tool and some helpers to extract it at runtime according to the > kernel version should work. It probably would be one header file reused by all tools and then a set of helpers to fetch those BTFs based on host distro/kernel combo. > > > And how slow would it be to download all those > > BTFs and run min_core_btf on all of them? > > The whole thing takes like 5 minutes on my system (AMD Ryzen 7 3700X > with 60mbps connection), given that almost 3 minutes are spent > downloading the files I'd say that with a fast connection and some > performance improvements (multicore?) it could take around 2~3 > minutes. > > Let me think better about this integration and will be back with some ideas. Sounds good, thanks!
