On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 12:41:30 +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 04:37:52PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > Debug output showed me that libdw found a module for the last frame
> > address, but it thinks it belongs to /usr/lib/ld-2.25.so.
I find your patch as a correct workaround of
On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 12:41:30 +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 04:37:52PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > Debug output showed me that libdw found a module for the last frame
> > address, but it thinks it belongs to /usr/lib/ld-2.25.so.
I find your patch as a correct workaround of
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 04:37:52PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> In some situations the libdw unwinder stopped working properly.
> I.e. with libunwind we see:
>
> ~
> heaptrack_gui 2228 135073.400112: 641314 cycles:
> e8ed _dl_fixup (/usr/lib/ld-2.25.so)
>
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 04:37:52PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> In some situations the libdw unwinder stopped working properly.
> I.e. with libunwind we see:
>
> ~
> heaptrack_gui 2228 135073.400112: 641314 cycles:
> e8ed _dl_fixup (/usr/lib/ld-2.25.so)
>
On Freitag, 2. Juni 2017 21:49:10 CEST Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 06:21:44PM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu:
> > On Freitag, 2. Juni 2017 17:23:41 CEST Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Looks ok, having both implementations matching and the callchains making
> > >
On Freitag, 2. Juni 2017 21:49:10 CEST Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 06:21:44PM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu:
> > On Freitag, 2. Juni 2017 17:23:41 CEST Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Looks ok, having both implementations matching and the callchains making
> > >
Em Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 06:21:44PM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu:
> On Freitag, 2. Juni 2017 17:23:41 CEST Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Looks ok, having both implementations matching and the callchains making
> > sense for your workloads is a good way to verify the sanity, thanks.
> > I
Em Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 06:21:44PM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu:
> On Freitag, 2. Juni 2017 17:23:41 CEST Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Looks ok, having both implementations matching and the callchains making
> > sense for your workloads is a good way to verify the sanity, thanks.
> > I
On Freitag, 2. Juni 2017 17:23:41 CEST Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 04:37:52PM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu:
> > In some situations the libdw unwinder stopped working properly.
> > I.e. with libunwind we see:
> >
> > ~
> >
> > heaptrack_gui 2228 135073.400112:
On Freitag, 2. Juni 2017 17:23:41 CEST Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 04:37:52PM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu:
> > In some situations the libdw unwinder stopped working properly.
> > I.e. with libunwind we see:
> >
> > ~
> >
> > heaptrack_gui 2228 135073.400112:
Em Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 04:37:52PM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu:
> In some situations the libdw unwinder stopped working properly.
> I.e. with libunwind we see:
>
> ~
> heaptrack_gui 2228 135073.400112: 641314 cycles:
> e8ed _dl_fixup (/usr/lib/ld-2.25.so)
>
Em Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 04:37:52PM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu:
> In some situations the libdw unwinder stopped working properly.
> I.e. with libunwind we see:
>
> ~
> heaptrack_gui 2228 135073.400112: 641314 cycles:
> e8ed _dl_fixup (/usr/lib/ld-2.25.so)
>
In some situations the libdw unwinder stopped working properly.
I.e. with libunwind we see:
~
heaptrack_gui 2228 135073.400112: 641314 cycles:
e8ed _dl_fixup (/usr/lib/ld-2.25.so)
15f06 _dl_runtime_resolve_sse_vex (/usr/lib/ld-2.25.so)
In some situations the libdw unwinder stopped working properly.
I.e. with libunwind we see:
~
heaptrack_gui 2228 135073.400112: 641314 cycles:
e8ed _dl_fixup (/usr/lib/ld-2.25.so)
15f06 _dl_runtime_resolve_sse_vex (/usr/lib/ld-2.25.so)
14 matches
Mail list logo