public inbox for systemtap@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Results of systemtap-20071215 snapshot on ia64
@ 2007-12-17 19:40 William Cohen
  2007-12-17 19:48 ` Masami Hiramatsu
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: William Cohen @ 2007-12-17 19:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: SystemTAP

RHEL5 ia64
Date: 200712152157
User: wcohen
Kernel: Linux 2.6.24-rc5 #1 SMP Thu Dec 13 12:32:48 EST 2007 ia64 ia64 ia64 
GNU/Linux

Testsuite summary of failed tests
FAIL: beginenderror (timeout)
FAIL: beginenderror (0 0 0)
FAIL: PROCFS shutdown (eof)
FAIL: backtrace of yyy_func4.return (0)
FAIL: print_stack of yyy_func4.return (0)
FAIL: buildok/ioblock_test.stp		(pr5231)
FAIL: buildok/nfs-all-probes.stp	(pr5150)
FAIL: buildok/rpc-all-probes.stp	(pr5150)
FAIL: buildok/scheduler-all-probes.stp	(pr5152)
FAIL: buildok/signal-all-probes.stp	(pr5151)
FAIL: iostat-scsi.stp			(pr5422)
FAIL: proc_snoop.stp			(pr5151)
FAIL: systemtap.samples/ioblocktest.stp shutdown (eof)
FAIL: systemtap.stress/current.stp shutdown (eof)
FAIL: 64-bit alarm
FAIL: 64-bit forkwait
FAIL: 64-bit stat
		=== systemtap Summary ===

# of expected passes		456
# of unexpected failures	17
# of expected failures		161
# of unknown successes		1
# of known failures		5
# of untested testcases		10
# of unsupported tests		2
runtest completed at Sat Dec 15 19:50:06 2007

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: Results of systemtap-20071215 snapshot on ia64
  2007-12-17 19:40 Results of systemtap-20071215 snapshot on ia64 William Cohen
@ 2007-12-17 19:48 ` Masami Hiramatsu
  2007-12-17 22:17   ` William Cohen
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Masami Hiramatsu @ 2007-12-17 19:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: William Cohen; +Cc: SystemTAP

Hi Will,

William Cohen 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.

Thank you,

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu

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

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: Results of systemtap-20071215 snapshot on ia64
  2007-12-17 19:48 ` Masami Hiramatsu
@ 2007-12-17 22:17   ` William Cohen
  2007-12-18  0:11     ` Masami Hiramatsu
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: William Cohen @ 2007-12-17 22:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Masami Hiramatsu; +Cc: SystemTAP

Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Hi Will,
> 
> William Cohen 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.
> 
> Thank you,
> 

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.

-Will


backtrace from 
module("systemtap_test_module2").function("yyy_func3@/home/wcohen/stap_snap_200712152157/src/testsuite/systemtap.context/stapte: 

  0xa000000200af0020 : yyy_func3+0x0/0x60 [systemtap_test_module2]
  0xa000000200af0020 : yyy_func3+0x0/0x60 [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 call stack is 0xa000000200af0020 0xa000000200af00b0 0xa000000200af0110 
0xa000000200ac8220 0xa0000001001ebaa0 0xa0000001001664d0 0xa0000001001
--------
  0xa000000200af0020 : yyy_func3+0x0/0x60 [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
--------
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
--------
backtrace from timer.profile:
  0x200000000021c280
--------
the profile stack is 0x200000000021c280
--------
  0x200000000021c280
--------
PASS: backtrace of yyy_func3
PASS: print_stack of yyy_func3
FAIL: backtrace of yyy_func4.return (0)
FAIL: print_stack of yyy_func4.return (0)
PASS: backtrace of timer.profile
PASS: print_stack of timer.profile
READY

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: Results of systemtap-20071215 snapshot on ia64
  2007-12-17 22:17   ` William Cohen
@ 2007-12-18  0:11     ` Masami Hiramatsu
  2007-12-18 21:41       ` William Cohen
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Masami Hiramatsu @ 2007-12-18  0:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: William Cohen; +Cc: SystemTAP

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: Results of systemtap-20071215 snapshot on ia64
  2007-12-18  0:11     ` Masami Hiramatsu
@ 2007-12-18 21:41       ` William Cohen
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: William Cohen @ 2007-12-18 21:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Masami Hiramatsu; +Cc: SystemTAP

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2007-12-18 21:41 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-12-17 19:40 Results of systemtap-20071215 snapshot on ia64 William Cohen
2007-12-17 19:48 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2007-12-17 22:17   ` William Cohen
2007-12-18  0:11     ` Masami Hiramatsu
2007-12-18 21:41       ` William Cohen

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).