Re: Results of systemtap-20071215 snapshot on ia64

[Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat at redhat dot com>]

Hi Will,

William Cohen wrote:
> Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>> FAIL: backtrace of yyy_func4.return (0)
>>> FAIL: print_stack of yyy_func4.return (0)
>> Could you show me the error log in systemtap.log about this testcase?
>> I saw a patch which fixes this bug was merged into 2.6.24-rc5.
>> So I expected it would pass on 2.6.24-rc5.
> 
> Do you have a pointer to the patch that is suppose to fix this? Below is the 
> output from the systemtap.log file related to those tests.

Thank you,
Here is the (kernel) patch which can fix this fails.
http://marc.info/?l=linux-ia64&m=119493734125209&w=2

> backtrace from 
> module("systemtap_test_module2").function("yyy_func4@/home/wcohen/stap_snap_200712152157/src/testsuite/systemtap.context/stapte: 
> 
> Returning from: 0xa000000200af0000 : yyy_func4+0x0/0x20 [systemtap_test_module2]
> Returning to  : 0xa000000200af0050 : yyy_func3+0x30/0x60 [systemtap_test_module2]
>   0xa000000200af0050 : yyy_func3+0x30/0x60 [systemtap_test_module2]
>   0xa000000200af00b0 : yyy_func2+0x30/0x60 [systemtap_test_module2]
>   0xa000000200af0110 : yyy_func1+0x30/0x60 [systemtap_test_module2]
>   0xa000000200ac8220 : stm_write_cmd+0x100/0x0 [systemtap_test_module1]
>   0xa0000001001ebaa0 : proc_reg_write+0x120/0x160 []
>   0xa0000001001664d0 : vfs_write+0x1d0/0x320 []
>   0xa000000100166f50 : sys_write+0x70/0xe0 []
>   0xa00000010000b2d0 : ia64_trace_syscall+0xd0/0x110 []
>   0xa000000000010720
> --------
> the return stack is 0xa000000200af0050 0xa000000200af00b0 0xa000000200af0110 
> 0xa000000200ac8220 0xa0000001001ebaa0 0xa0000001001664d0 0xa0000001001
> --------
>   0xa000000200af0050 : yyy_func3+0x30/0x60 [systemtap_test_module2]
>   0xa000000200af00b0 : yyy_func2+0x30/0x60 [systemtap_test_module2]
>   0xa000000200af0110 : yyy_func1+0x30/0x60 [systemtap_test_module2]
>   0xa000000200ac8220 : stm_write_cmd+0x100/0x0 [systemtap_test_module1]
>   0xa0000001001ebaa0 : proc_reg_write+0x120/0x160 []
>   0xa0000001001664d0 : vfs_write+0x1d0/0x320 []
>   0x00000a0000001001

Hmm, interesting. That output is a bit different from x86-64, but works fine.
I think it is a kind of architecture dependent specification. In that case,
we should fix that testcase.

backtrace from module("systemtap_test_module2").function("yyy_func4@/home/mhiramat/Work/systemtap/testsuite/systemtap.context/staptest11202/sy:
Returning from: 0xffffffff8821d000 : yyy_func4+0x0/0x4 [systemtap_test_module2]
Returning to  : 0xffffffff8821d009 : yyy_func3+0x5/0x8 [systemtap_test_module2]
 0xffffffff8821d011 : yyy_func2+0x5/0x8 [systemtap_test_module2]
 0xffffffff8821d019 : yyy_func1+0x5/0x8 [systemtap_test_module2]
 0xffffffff8822008a : stm_write_cmd+0x3d/0x0 [systemtap_test_module1]
 0xffffffff810da370 : proc_reg_write+0x80/0x9b []
 0xffffffff810a1811 : vfs_write+0xc6/0x16f []
 0xffffffff810a1dce : sys_write+0x45/0x6e []
 0xffffffff8100c09a : tracesys+0xdc/0xe1 []
--------
the return stack is 0xffffffff81024585 0xffffffff8821d011 0xffffffff8821d019 0xffffffff8822008a 0xffffffff810da370 0xffffffff810a1811 0xffffffff810
--------
 0xffffffff81024585 : kretprobe_trampoline_holder+0x1/0x4 []
 0xffffffff8821d011 : yyy_func2+0x5/0x8 [systemtap_test_module2]
 0xffffffff8821d019 : yyy_func1+0x5/0x8 [systemtap_test_module2]
 0xffffffff8822008a : stm_write_cmd+0x3d/0x0 [systemtap_test_module1]
 0xffffffff810da370 : proc_reg_write+0x80/0x9b []
 0xffffffff810a1811 : vfs_write+0xc6/0x16f []
 0x00000ffffffff810

Thanks,

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu

Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc.
Software Solutions Division

e-mail: mhiramat@redhat.com, masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com