I am not sure whether this is my setting problem or a bug with a
more recent kernel. lttng-sessiond was killed when I tried to "enable
event" after a session was created. See below part of the verbose output of
the sessiond. It is observed on Ubuntu 22.04, kernel 6.5.0-14-generic
#14~22.04.1-Ubuntu
ld_float(double, k, mystruct->k)
>lttng_ust_field_string(string_field, mystruct->thing)
>lttng_ust_field_string(string_field2, mystruct->thing2)
> )
> )
>
> ```
>
> Hope this helps!
>
> thanks,
> kienan
>
> On 2023-11-27 22:26, Yonghong Yan v
I have a situation where I need to record more than 10 fields. If you can
extend it to support more, but not introduce overhead of handling such rare
cases, that will be great.
Thanks
Yonghong
___
lttng-dev mailing list
lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org
https://
I have not yet tested but would like to ask first. If I am using LTTng-UST
to trace a program that is also being debugged, at the debug breakpoint
that the program stops, are we able to let the traces be dumped so they
can be viewed by a viewer (tracecompass or babeltrace)?
Thank you
Yonghong
___
I am tracing a multiprocess/multithreaded code (MPI/OpenMP) using
lttng-ust. Right now, I need to include process id and thread id for each
event in order to generate process/thread indexed view of the traces. Is
there a way that I can store per-process events into a specific buffer
without mixing
pile (compile file one by one).
gcc -o hello tp-one.c tp-two.c hello.c -llttng-ust -ldl
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 12:22 PM Mathieu Desnoyers <
mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com> wrote:
>
>
> - On Oct 7, 2019, at 9:59 AM, Yonghong Yan yany...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > For lt
I am not sure whether this is a bug or the wrong I am using it. When I use
extern declaration as follows, I always have compilation error. I used the
easy-ust to demonstrate:
*diff --git a/doc/examples/easy-ust/sample_component_provider.h
b/doc/examples/easy-ust/sample_component_provider.h*
*inde
For lttng-ust, can I put the tracepoint definition in two files, but they
use the same provider.
Thank you.
Yonghong
___
lttng-dev mailing list
lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org
https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
For example,
>
>
>
> With LTTng traces, it will automatically be the CPU, obtained as Mathieu
> described, no need for an extra field.
>
> Regards,
>
> Geneviève
>
>
> On 2019-01-21 4:21 p.m., Yonghong Yan wrote:
>
> Thank you. make sense. I am using Trace Com
noy...@efficios.com> wrote:
>
> - On Jan 21, 2019, at 12:14 PM, Yonghong Yan
> wrote:
>
> I saw there is cpu_id field in babeltrace list, how can I add it to the
> context of UST tracepoint events. lttng add-context --list does not show
> that field and I do not see a s
I saw there is cpu_id field in babeltrace list, how can I add it to the
context of UST tracepoint events. lttng add-context --list does not show
that field and I do not see a similar field for the cpu_id.
Thank you
Yonghong
___
lttng-dev mailing list
ltt
d outside of fast-paths.
>
> Changing the design of LTTng from per-cpu to something else would be a
> significant endeavor.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mathieu
>
>
> - On Dec 20, 2018, at 3:27 PM, Yonghong Yan wrote:
>
>
> Apologize for the wrong terms. I will ask in
ose concepts don't appear anywhere in the LTTng documentations.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mathieu
>
> - On Dec 19, 2018, at 6:06 PM, Yonghong Yan wrote:
>
> Got another question about lttng_enable_event(): Using this API will
> impact per-user-thread tracepoint or the whol
activities
on each CPU.
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 12:56 PM Mathieu Desnoyers <
mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com> wrote:
>
> - On Dec 19, 2018, at 5:07 PM, Yonghong Yan wrote:
>
> Mathieu,
>
> Thank you for your response. see inline ...
>
> On Wed, Dec 19, 201
Then why bother to require to have the TP_ARGS in
TRACEPOINT_EVENT_INSTANCE?
Yonghong
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 11:56 AM Philippe Proulx
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 11:47 AM Yonghong Yan wrote:
> >
> > I am looking at the following example from lttng-ust manual. The
I am looking at the following example from lttng-ust manual. The same
TP_ARGS ( ... ) are repeated in both the TRACEPOINT_EVENT_CLASS and
TRACEPOINT_EVENT_INSTANCE definition. My understanding is that it actually
allows using different arguments, even in this example it is the same. Am I
right?
I
> Hi Yonghong,
>
> - On Dec 19, 2018, at 1:19 PM, Yonghong Yan wrote:
>
> We are experimenting LTTng for tracing multi-threaded program, it works
> very well for us. Thank you for having this great tool. But we have some
> concerns about the overhead and scalability of t
Mathieu,
Thank you for your response. see inline ...
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 4:20 PM Mathieu Desnoyers <
mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com> wrote:
> Hi Yonghong,
>
> - On Dec 19, 2018, at 1:19 PM, Yonghong Yan wrote:
>
> We are experimenting LTTng for tracing multi-threa
We are experimenting LTTng for tracing multi-threaded program, it works
very well for us. Thank you for having this great tool. But we have some
concerns about the overhead and scalability of the tracing. Could you share
some insight of the following questions?
1. The session domain communicates wi
19 matches
Mail list logo
