This is the mail archive of the
systemtap@sourceware.org
mailing list for the systemtap project.
Re: Results of systemtap-20071215 snapshot on ia64
Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
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
Masami,
Thanks for the pointer to the kernel patch. The patch is definitely in the
2.6.24-rc5 kernel used for the tests.
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,
It looks like there needs to be some tweaking on the test. Both of the tests
return (0) so nothing is matched up (variables m3 and m4 in
testsuite/systemtap.context/backtrace.tcl)
FAIL: backtrace of yyy_func4.return (0)
FAIL: print_stack of yyy_func4.return (0)
Noticed that the print_stack expect kretprobe_trampoline_holder to be in the
output and it is missing from the ia64 version, so "print_stack of
yyy_func4.return" is not going to pass.
-Will