This is the mail archive of the
systemtap@sourceware.org
mailing list for the systemtap project.
RE: precompiled probing scenarios
- From: "Stone, Joshua I" <joshua dot i dot stone at intel dot com>
- To: "David Smith" <dsmith at redhat dot com>, "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche at elastic dot org>
- Cc: <systemtap at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 11:44:19 -0700
- Subject: RE: precompiled probing scenarios
On Friday, October 20, 2006 6:50 AM, David Smith wrote:
> Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>>> Note that currently several tests in the testsuite fail after a
>>> first run to seed the cache because they don't expect to see the
>>> skip from pass 2 to pass 5.
>>
>> How do you mean they fail? -p3 or -p4 should still work.
>
> Here's what goes on. The '-p3' and '-p4' options still work. But,
> several run ('-p5') tests use testsuite/lib/stap_run.exp or
> testsuite/lib/stap_run2.exp. Those two tcl files expect to see "Pass
> [12345]" in the output. They get confused when only seeing "Pass
> [125]" and then think the test has timed out.
Would it make sense to print "dummy" pass 3/4 messages when a cached
version is used? Something like:
Pass 1: parsed user script and 53 library script(s) in
310usr/0sys/326real ms.
Pass 2: analyzed script: 1 probe(s), 0 function(s), 0 global(s) in
10usr/0sys/5real ms.
Pass 3: (cached) in 0usr/0sys/0real ms.
Pass 4: (cached) in 0usr/0sys/0real ms.
Pass 5: starting run.
The timing info doesn't need to be hardcoded zero, I just expect it
would be very small.
Side question - do you still use caching when someone calls '-p3' or
'-p4'? And with verbosity increased, what would this output, given that
you're not actually doing the work? (e.g., you wouldn't have a compiler
output on a cached pass-4.)
Josh