* 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).