From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3946 invoked by alias); 22 Sep 2014 16:11:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 3938 invoked by uid 89); 22 Sep 2014 16:11:48 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-vc0-f178.google.com Received: from mail-vc0-f178.google.com (HELO mail-vc0-f178.google.com) (209.85.220.178) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 16:11:43 +0000 Received: by mail-vc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id lf12so1957735vcb.37 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:11:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=/IHsZW1ORN+FiALWgqnnWE5qlw3QzIP4z8+xwJgk9V4=; b=d2C5cfU1O93tUDFnLLuBY2k2mfJUJeaqDCpxUtr2PysgaHdEwbcGjP2Jv2V5tT6GPq c/GUZAL9irbzU/VrcyBdPKUGTtcLPGi8C3dq8MGTNuD4HrAJ0MdF3E3yB9TCJKaea6nU Q6GPX0NnkQQauasHhbqmrRkRXx8HCxE1N15rdoSJffje7spDKKcj6/x2TH6CDeMmYoiq 58QJSOYotWYRlDzVzH6edoDRE823DMyqL4P0lUTJnSTsatqLZSmXW/TjXTZFLUjp/+5K n7CDocBIponSzvBOVmJB2RuLf/oDTQp5enpfyGNylJ6f3l0JP8DBSF+7QB9/1k+3RqAM rJVw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQluHN1MJqwIBkdhA5k5pVPot8uuFtmGKos6nx9Wl3Ca++YQzVRblPv8PD0m7gs9tT2OCiBw MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.117.238 with SMTP id kh14mr1292569vdb.91.1411402301029; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:11:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.68.148 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:11:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5420292C.9050106@redhat.com> References: <1410871795-12539-1-git-send-email-sshukla@mvista.com> <541C41B2.7010509@redhat.com> <5420292C.9050106@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 16:11:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [SYSTEMTAP/PATCH v2 0/6] RT aware systemtap patch set From: Santosh Shukla To: David Smith Cc: Josh Stone , systemtap@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-SW-Source: 2014-q3/txt/msg00299.txt.bz2 On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:20 PM, David Smith wrote: > On 09/20/2014 08:12 AM, Santosh Shukla wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Santosh Shukla wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 8:16 PM, David Smith wrote: >>>> On 09/16/2014 07:49 AM, Santosh Shukla wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> This is a v2 version of -rt aware systemtap patchset, tested for 3.14.12-rt9 and for 3.10.40-rt38 kernel version. >>>>> For v1->v2 related details refer [1]. Patchset based on stap upstream link [2] master branch. >>>> >>>> I did a bit of testing on these patches. >>>> >>>> First I tested plain systemtap code on 3.10.0-153.el7.x86_64 to get a >>>> baseline. I then applied the 6 patches, and re-ran the entire testsuite >>>> on that kernel. No changes. Great. >>>> >>>> I then put 3.10.0-155.rt56.79.el7rt.x86_64 on that same system and ran >>>> the testsuite. Unfortunately the system crashes somewhere in check.exp. >>>> So, we've still got a ways to go. >>>> >>> >>> Right, I fixed those.. still seeing few deadlock. I'll update v3 patch >>> set passing installcheck testsuite soon. Thanks. >> >> Test result summary for make installcheck using el7 config on -rt and >> non-rt mode tested on vanilla 3.14.12 (non-rt) and on 3.14.12-rt9 >> kernel below : > > Let me see if I understand this: > > -rt mode: This is your patched systemtap running on a rt kernel > > non-rt mode: This is your patches systemtap running on a regular, > non-rt, kernel. > > Is the above correct? No. V3 patch set which I sent out today. It is tested for -rt and non-rt mode. I could send you the systemtap.sum for both the cases if you suspect on test results, Let me know, thanks. > >> 1) -rt mode: >> >> >> === systemtap Summary === >> >> # of expected passes 5060 >> # of unexpected failures 131 >> # of unexpected successes 1 >> # of expected failures 315 >> # of known failures 68 >> # of untested testcases 275 >> # of unsupported tests 4 >> >> >> >> 2) non-rt mode: >> >> === systemtap Summary === >> >> # of expected passes 4988 >> # of unexpected failures 181 >> # of unexpected successes 1 >> # of expected failures 315 >> # of known failures 68 >> # of untested testcases 285 >> # of unsupported tests 4 > > What's odd here is that the number of unexpected failures is higher on > the non-rt kernel. I would have expected the other way around. I am really not sure :) You are asking me to fish out and answer out of 4000+ test, which one failed on -rt and on non-rt. You may try running v3 patchset for -rt and non-rt mode. > > -- > David Smith > dsmith@redhat.com > Red Hat > http://www.redhat.com > 256.217.0141 (direct) > 256.837.0057 (fax)