From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16495 invoked by alias); 20 Oct 2006 18:44:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 16486 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Oct 2006 18:44:30 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mga02.intel.com (HELO mga02.intel.com) (134.134.136.20) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Oct 2006 18:44:21 +0000 Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by mga02.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Oct 2006 11:44:20 -0700 Received: from scsmsx332.sc.intel.com (HELO scsmsx332.amr.corp.intel.com) ([10.3.90.6]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Oct 2006 11:44:20 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,336,1157353200"; d="scan'208"; a="148199255:sNHT22023897" Received: from scsmsx413.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.3.90.32]) by scsmsx332.amr.corp.intel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 20 Oct 2006 11:44:20 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: precompiled probing scenarios Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 18:44:00 -0000 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: precompiled probing scenarios Thread-Index: Acb0TsBK+oLGyUJIRM2wiXPvzYvX4QAHUI3Q From: "Stone, Joshua I" To: "David Smith" , "Frank Ch. Eigler" Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Oct 2006 18:44:20.0154 (UTC) FILETIME=[C0EAD9A0:01C6F477] X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-q4/txt/msg00220.txt.bz2 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. >>=20 >> How do you mean they fail? -p3 or -p4 should still work. >=20 > 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