* Re: Segmenation fault for systemtap tests using the arm uprobes support
[not found] ` <52701F7A.8070102@linaro.org>
@ 2013-11-05 20:36 ` William Cohen
2013-11-06 0:02 ` David Long
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: William Cohen @ 2013-11-05 20:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Long; +Cc: Naresh Kamboju, systemtap
On 10/29/2013 04:50 PM, David Long wrote:
> OK, I've seen your error once now. I guess I just need to run the test a number of times looking for it. I am investigating.
>
> -dl
>
Hi David,
I finally got the uprobe-v2 branch of https://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/davelong/linux.git;a=summary working on my samsung arm chromebook (needed to use a newer exynos5250-snow.dtb file). I reran the at_var test with the newer kernel and do not see the sigsegv.
I am going to rerun the test tests with this kernel and see if the problem went away with the newer version of the patches.
-Will
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Segmenation fault for systemtap tests using the arm uprobes support
2013-11-05 20:36 ` Segmenation fault for systemtap tests using the arm uprobes support William Cohen
@ 2013-11-06 0:02 ` David Long
2013-11-06 15:25 ` William Cohen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: David Long @ 2013-11-06 0:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: William Cohen; +Cc: Naresh Kamboju, systemtap
On 11/05/13 15:36, William Cohen wrote:
> On 10/29/2013 04:50 PM, David Long wrote:
>> OK, I've seen your error once now. I guess I just need to run the test a number of times looking for it. I am investigating.
>>
>> -dl
>>
>
> Hi David,
>
> I finally got the uprobe-v2 branch of https://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/davelong/linux.git;a=summary working on my samsung arm chromebook (needed to use a newer exynos5250-snow.dtb file). I reran the at_var test with the newer kernel and do not see the sigsegv.
>
> I am going to rerun the test tests with this kernel and see if the problem went away with the newer version of the patches.
>
> -Will
>
I'm still seeing the SEGV with my latest patches on V3.12 on a Panda.
-dl
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Segmenation fault for systemtap tests using the arm uprobes support
2013-11-06 0:02 ` David Long
@ 2013-11-06 15:25 ` William Cohen
2013-11-06 15:57 ` David Long
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: William Cohen @ 2013-11-06 15:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Long; +Cc: Naresh Kamboju, systemtap
On 11/05/2013 07:02 PM, David Long wrote:
> On 11/05/13 15:36, William Cohen wrote:
>> On 10/29/2013 04:50 PM, David Long wrote:
>>> OK, I've seen your error once now. I guess I just need to run the test a number of times looking for it. I am investigating.
>>>
>>> -dl
>>>
>>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> I finally got the uprobe-v2 branch of https://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/davelong/linux.git;a=summary working on my samsung arm chromebook (needed to use a newer exynos5250-snow.dtb file). I reran the at_var test with the newer kernel and do not see the sigsegv.
>>
>> I am going to rerun the test tests with this kernel and see if the problem went away with the newer version of the patches.
>>
>> -Will
>>
>
>
> I'm still seeing the SEGV with my latest patches on V3.12 on a Panda.
>
> -dl
>
Hi David,
With the uprobe-v2 version I only saw one test that appeared to fail because of a sigsegv:
FAIL: 32_BIT_UTRACE_SYSCALL_ARGS
I have uploaded the test results of the systemtap run with the uprobes-v2 branch to the systemtap dejazilla system:
web.elastic.org/~dejazilla/viewsummary.php?summary=%3D%27%3C527A58AC.9000301%40redhat.com%3E%27
dejazilla allows comparison between different systemtap.sum files. I looked through the list of recent arm7l runs:
https://web.elastic.org/~dejazilla/viewsummary.php?_offset=0&_limit=20&_sort=1A&summary=&age=&rg=&tool=&variant=%3D%27armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf%27&versions=&pass=&fail=&kpass=&kfail=&xpass=&xfail=&untested=&unresolved=&unsupported=&warning=&error=
The following URL is a comparison between the older uprobes and uprobes-v2 runs:
https://web.elastic.org/~dejazilla/viewrgdiff.php?rg1=150513&rg2=822815&_sort=0A&_limit=1000
Some of the like minidebuginfo and process_by_cmd2.stp passed with the uprobes-v2 kernel.
When searching for ways to test uprobes support I cam across https://github.com/rabinv/uprobes-test . Are these tests useful or have they been orphaned?
-Will
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Segmenation fault for systemtap tests using the arm uprobes support
2013-11-06 15:25 ` William Cohen
@ 2013-11-06 15:57 ` David Long
2013-11-06 16:33 ` William Cohen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: David Long @ 2013-11-06 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: William Cohen; +Cc: Naresh Kamboju, systemtap
On 11/06/13 10:24, William Cohen wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> With the uprobe-v2 version I only saw one test that appeared to fail because of a sigsegv:
>
Are you testing on the same hardware? It's conceivable that could make
a difference, especially if the number of CPU's is different.
>
> When searching for ways to test uprobes support I cam across https://github.com/rabinv/uprobes-test . Are these tests useful or have they been orphaned?
>
Yes, they are very useful. I run them all the time. Note there are
some expected failures late in the run, also apparently these tests do
not test uretprobes.
-dl
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Segmenation fault for systemtap tests using the arm uprobes support
2013-11-06 15:57 ` David Long
@ 2013-11-06 16:33 ` William Cohen
2013-11-08 18:24 ` David Long
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: William Cohen @ 2013-11-06 16:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Long; +Cc: Naresh Kamboju, systemtap
On 11/06/2013 10:57 AM, David Long wrote:
> On 11/06/13 10:24, William Cohen wrote:
>>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> With the uprobe-v2 version I only saw one test that appeared to fail because of a sigsegv:
>>
>
> Are you testing on the same hardware? It's conceivable that could make a difference, especially if the number of CPU's is different.
>
Hi David,
I am using the same machine for all the kernels, a samsung ARM chromebook. It is the fastest ARM-based machine I have access to. It does have 2 processor. I am compiling the kernel with SMP support. One thing that is different betweenthe kernels is that the newer uprobes-v2 version was compiled without LPAE or KVM support. Would those configure options make any difference in results?
>>
>> When searching for ways to test uprobes support I cam across https://github.com/rabinv/uprobes-test . Are these tests useful or have they been orphaned?
>>
>
> Yes, they are very useful. I run them all the time. Note there are some expected failures late in the run, also apparently these tests do not test uretprobes.
>
> -dl
Great to hear that the tests are being used to exercise the kprobes. The tests haven't changed in 9 months, so I wasn't sure if they were being used.
-Will
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Segmenation fault for systemtap tests using the arm uprobes support
2013-11-06 16:33 ` William Cohen
@ 2013-11-08 18:24 ` David Long
2013-11-22 2:12 ` William Cohen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: David Long @ 2013-11-08 18:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: William Cohen; +Cc: Naresh Kamboju, systemtap
On 11/06/13 11:33, William Cohen wrote:
> On 11/06/2013 10:57 AM, David Long wrote:
>> On 11/06/13 10:24, William Cohen wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> With the uprobe-v2 version I only saw one test that appeared to fail because of a sigsegv:
>>>
>>
>> Are you testing on the same hardware? It's conceivable that could make a difference, especially if the number of CPU's is different.
>>
>
I wouldn't expect those options to make a difference for uprobes. They
might for kprobes.
I just finally found the bug in ARM uretprobe's. It's a simple fix.
-dl
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Segmenation fault for systemtap tests using the arm uprobes support
2013-11-08 18:24 ` David Long
@ 2013-11-22 2:12 ` William Cohen
2013-11-22 2:42 ` David Long
2013-11-26 5:25 ` David Long
0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: William Cohen @ 2013-11-22 2:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Long; +Cc: Naresh Kamboju, systemtap
On 11/08/2013 01:12 PM, David Long wrote:
> On 11/06/13 11:33, William Cohen wrote:
>> On 11/06/2013 10:57 AM, David Long wrote:
>>> On 11/06/13 10:24, William Cohen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi David,
>>>>
>>>> With the uprobe-v2 version I only saw one test that appeared to fail because of a sigsegv:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are you testing on the same hardware? It's conceivable that could make a difference, especially if the number of CPU's is different.
>>>
>>
>
> I wouldn't expect those options to make a difference for uprobes. They might for kprobes.
>
> I just finally found the bug in ARM uretprobe's. It's a simple fix.
>
> -dl
>
Hi Dave,
Are there updated ARM uprobe-v3 patches somewhere? I would be happy to try them. out.
-Will
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Segmenation fault for systemtap tests using the arm uprobes support
2013-11-22 2:12 ` William Cohen
@ 2013-11-22 2:42 ` David Long
2013-11-26 5:25 ` David Long
1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: David Long @ 2013-11-22 2:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: William Cohen; +Cc: Naresh Kamboju, systemtap
On 11/21/13 21:11, William Cohen wrote:
> On 11/08/2013 01:12 PM, David Long wrote:
>> On 11/06/13 11:33, William Cohen wrote:
>>> On 11/06/2013 10:57 AM, David Long wrote:
>>>> On 11/06/13 10:24, William Cohen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>
>>>>> With the uprobe-v2 version I only saw one test that appeared to fail because of a sigsegv:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you testing on the same hardware? It's conceivable that could make a difference, especially if the number of CPU's is different.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> I wouldn't expect those options to make a difference for uprobes. They might for kprobes.
>>
>> I just finally found the bug in ARM uretprobe's. It's a simple fix.
>>
>> -dl
>>
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Are there updated ARM uprobe-v3 patches somewhere? I would be happy to try them. out.
>
> -Will
>
Almost. Should be ready this weekend.
-dl
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Segmenation fault for systemtap tests using the arm uprobes support
2013-11-22 2:12 ` William Cohen
2013-11-22 2:42 ` David Long
@ 2013-11-26 5:25 ` David Long
2013-11-26 21:06 ` William Cohen
1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: David Long @ 2013-11-26 5:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: William Cohen; +Cc: Naresh Kamboju, systemtap
On 11/21/13 21:11, William Cohen wrote:
> On 11/08/2013 01:12 PM, David Long wrote:
>> On 11/06/13 11:33, William Cohen wrote:
>>> On 11/06/2013 10:57 AM, David Long wrote:
>>>> On 11/06/13 10:24, William Cohen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>
>>>>> With the uprobe-v2 version I only saw one test that appeared to fail because of a sigsegv:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you testing on the same hardware? It's conceivable that could make a difference, especially if the number of CPU's is different.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> I wouldn't expect those options to make a difference for uprobes. They might for kprobes.
>>
>> I just finally found the bug in ARM uretprobe's. It's a simple fix.
>>
>> -dl
>>
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Are there updated ARM uprobe-v3 patches somewhere? I would be happy to try them. out.
>
> -Will
>
Hi,
I just now pushed V3 of the uprobes changes to my repo on the linaro
website:
git://git.linaro.org/people/davelong/linux.git
It's the uprobes-v3 branch. It's now based on V3.13-RC1. You need at
least that recent a kernel as Oleg has pushed some uprobes changes of
his and mine that these patches depend on.
Thanks,
-dl
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Segmenation fault for systemtap tests using the arm uprobes support
2013-11-26 5:25 ` David Long
@ 2013-11-26 21:06 ` William Cohen
2013-11-27 16:23 ` Results for arm uprobes-v3 posted William Cohen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: William Cohen @ 2013-11-26 21:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Long; +Cc: Naresh Kamboju, systemtap
On 11/26/2013 12:25 AM, David Long wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just now pushed V3 of the uprobes changes to my repo on the linaro website:
>
> git://git.linaro.org/people/davelong/linux.git
>
> It's the uprobes-v3 branch. It's now based on V3.13-RC1. You need at least that recent a kernel as Oleg has pushed some uprobes changes of his and mine that these patches depend on.
>
> Thanks,
> -dl
>
Hi Dave,
Thanks for the revised version of the patches.
I built a version of uprobes-v3 kernel on the Samsung ARM cromebook. It booted successfully and is running the systemtap "make installcheck".
-Will
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Results for arm uprobes-v3 posted
2013-11-26 21:06 ` William Cohen
@ 2013-11-27 16:23 ` William Cohen
2013-11-27 16:26 ` David Long
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: William Cohen @ 2013-11-27 16:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Long; +Cc: Naresh Kamboju, systemtap
On 11/26/2013 04:06 PM, William Cohen wrote:
> On 11/26/2013 12:25 AM, David Long wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just now pushed V3 of the uprobes changes to my repo on the linaro website:
>>
>> git://git.linaro.org/people/davelong/linux.git
>>
>> It's the uprobes-v3 branch. It's now based on V3.13-RC1. You need at least that recent a kernel as Oleg has pushed some uprobes changes of his and mine that these patches depend on.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -dl
>>
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Thanks for the revised version of the patches.
>
> I built a version of uprobes-v3 kernel on the Samsung ARM cromebook. It booted successfully and is running the systemtap "make installcheck".
>
> -Will
>
Hi Dave and Naresh,
I was able to run systemtap tests last night. These results are posted in dejazilla:
https://web.elastic.org/~dejazilla/viewsummary.php?summary=%3D%27%3C5296108F.2020903%40redhat.com%3E%27
The at_var_cu.exp test looks like it might need some closer examination it got a Segmentation fault. The process_by_cmd.stp, process_by_cmd2.stp,32_BIT_UTRACE_SYSCALL_ARGS startup, and global_var-m32 tests also seemed to fail in similar way. Below is the output from the systemtap.log for at_var_cu.exp test:
Running ./systemtap.base/at_var.exp ...
Executing on host: gcc ./systemtap.base/at_var.c -O2 -g -lm -o at_var (timeout = 300)
spawn -ignore SIGHUP gcc ./systemtap.base/at_var.c -O2 -g -lm -o at_var
executing: stap ./systemtap.base/at_var.stp -c ./at_var
FAIL: at_var
line 11: expected "user_int(&$foo->bar): 40"
Got "WARNING: Child process exited with signal 11 (Segmentation fault)"
"WARNING: /run/media/wcohen/wasteland/wcohen/systemtap_write/install/bin/staprun exited with status: 1"
"Pass 5: run failed. [man error::pass5]"
testcase ./systemtap.base/at_var.exp completed in 15 seconds
Running ./systemtap.base/at_var_cu.exp ...
Executing on host: gcc ./systemtap.base/at_var_cu_1.c ./systemtap.base/at_var_cu_2.c ./systemtap.base/at_var_cu_3.c -O2 -g -lm -o /run/media/wcohen/wasteland/wcohen/systemtap_write/systemtap/testsuite/at_var_cu (timeout = 300)
spawn -ignore SIGHUP gcc ./systemtap.base/at_var_cu_1.c ./systemtap.base/at_var_cu_2.c ./systemtap.base/at_var_cu_3.c -O2 -g -lm -o /run/media/wcohen/wasteland/wcohen/systemtap_write/systemtap/testsuite/at_var_cu
executing: stap ./systemtap.base/at_var_cu.stp -c ./at_var_cu /run/media/wcohen/wasteland/wcohen/systemtap_write/systemtap/testsuite/at_var_cu
FAIL: at_var_cu
line 13: expected "bah: @var("counter", @1): 8"
Got "bah: @var("counter", @1): 3"
"bah: @var("counter@at_var_cu_2.c", @1): 3"
"bah: @var("counter@at_var_cu_3.c", @1): 0"
"bah: @var("counter@at_var_cu*.c", @1): 3"
"bah': @var("counter@at_var_cu*.c"): 3"
"bah': @var("main_global"): 5"
testcase ./systemtap.base/at_var_cu.exp completed in 12 seconds
-Will
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Results for arm uprobes-v3 posted
2013-11-27 16:23 ` Results for arm uprobes-v3 posted William Cohen
@ 2013-11-27 16:26 ` David Long
2013-11-27 16:44 ` William Cohen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: David Long @ 2013-11-27 16:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: William Cohen; +Cc: Naresh Kamboju, systemtap
On 11/27/13 11:23, William Cohen wrote:
> On 11/26/2013 04:06 PM, William Cohen wrote:
>> On 11/26/2013 12:25 AM, David Long wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I just now pushed V3 of the uprobes changes to my repo on the linaro website:
>>>
>>> git://git.linaro.org/people/davelong/linux.git
>>>
>>> It's the uprobes-v3 branch. It's now based on V3.13-RC1. You need at least that recent a kernel as Oleg has pushed some uprobes changes of his and mine that these patches depend on.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -dl
>>>
>>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> Thanks for the revised version of the patches.
>>
>> I built a version of uprobes-v3 kernel on the Samsung ARM cromebook. It booted successfully and is running the systemtap "make installcheck".
>>
>> -Will
Are these more failures than were found with the v2 patches?
-dl
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Results for arm uprobes-v3 posted
2013-11-27 16:26 ` David Long
@ 2013-11-27 16:44 ` William Cohen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: William Cohen @ 2013-11-27 16:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Long; +Cc: Naresh Kamboju, systemtap
On 11/27/2013 11:26 AM, David Long wrote:
> On 11/27/13 11:23, William Cohen wrote:
>> On 11/26/2013 04:06 PM, William Cohen wrote:
>>> On 11/26/2013 12:25 AM, David Long wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I just now pushed V3 of the uprobes changes to my repo on the linaro website:
>>>>
>>>> git://git.linaro.org/people/davelong/linux.git
>>>>
>>>> It's the uprobes-v3 branch. It's now based on V3.13-RC1. You need at least that recent a kernel as Oleg has pushed some uprobes changes of his and mine that these patches depend on.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> -dl
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Dave,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the revised version of the patches.
>>>
>>> I built a version of uprobes-v3 kernel on the Samsung ARM cromebook. It booted successfully and is running the systemtap "make installcheck".
>>>
>>> -Will
>
> Are these more failures than were found with the v2 patches?
>
> -dl
>
>
Hi Dave,
Here is the comparison between an earlier systemtap "make installcheck" with the older set of patches: https://web.elastic.org/~dejazilla/viewrgdiff.php?rg1=903451&rg2=893427&_sort=0A&_limit=1000
The at_var_cu.exp, global var-m32, global var-m32-O process_by_cmd2.stp appear to be regressions.
-Will
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-11-27 16:44 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <5229DF78.4060301@redhat.com>
[not found] ` <5229E091.1090802@linaro.org>
[not found] ` <52681E03.8080509@redhat.com>
[not found] ` <52701F7A.8070102@linaro.org>
2013-11-05 20:36 ` Segmenation fault for systemtap tests using the arm uprobes support William Cohen
2013-11-06 0:02 ` David Long
2013-11-06 15:25 ` William Cohen
2013-11-06 15:57 ` David Long
2013-11-06 16:33 ` William Cohen
2013-11-08 18:24 ` David Long
2013-11-22 2:12 ` William Cohen
2013-11-22 2:42 ` David Long
2013-11-26 5:25 ` David Long
2013-11-26 21:06 ` William Cohen
2013-11-27 16:23 ` Results for arm uprobes-v3 posted William Cohen
2013-11-27 16:26 ` David Long
2013-11-27 16:44 ` 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).