On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 09:01:27PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Hello.
This is the new iteration of Roland's utrace patch, this time
with rewrite-ptrace-via-utrace + cleanups in utrace core.
1-7 are already in -mm tree, I am sending them to simplify the
review.
8-12 don not change the
Hello!
Those are the test results on i686 F12 hosts with and without CONFIG_UTRACE.
Interesting thing is that the results on quite different on two Intel hosts.
gdb.sum is from without CONFIG_UTRACE.
Thanks!
CAI Qian
ProLiant DL360 G4p (Intel)
diff -u gdb.sum gdb-utrace.sum
--- gdb.sum
This is subjective, but personally I disagree. Contrary, imho it
is good that tracehook hides the (simple) details. I do not understand
why the reader of, say, do_fork() should see the contents of
tracehook_report_clone_complete(). This will complicate the understanding.
Someone who has to
Hi,
the gdb.pie/break.exp change would be worth checking more but this is based on
the old PIE patch with various known problems and for RHEL-6 there will be
a different/new PIE patch implementation.
Also the gdb.base/bigcore.exp and gdb.base/follow-child.exp changes would be
worth checking if
Hi,
Here is the summary of GDB testsuite runs on a vanilla kernel and one
with ptrace over utrace on a powerpc machine:
Vanilla ptrace:
=== gdb Summary ===
# of expected passes13970
# of unexpected failures52
# of unexpected successes 2
# of expected
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:59:11 +0100, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
Essentially, there is *no* change in any of the numbers with and without
ptrace over utrace.
While it is probable so please rather check diff of the *.sum files as some of
the results are fuzzy and - in a rare possibility -
On 11/25, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
I ran the ptrace-tests testsuite [1] on powerpc on the vanilla ptrace
and then with ptrace/utrace. The results for ptrace/utrace look better
:-)
Great! thanks a lot Ananth for doing this.
ptrace-utrace still fails 2 tests,
FAIL: syscall-reset
* Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com wrote:
Much better. But in this case please note that most of tracehooks just
do:
if (unlikely(task_utrace_flags(current) SOME_EVENT))
utrace_report_some_event();
I really don't understand why we shouldn't have
First of all, thanks Ananth and Cai for help!
Jan, I need your help ;)
looking at different reports I can't understand how to interpret them.
To the point, I do not understand if the overall results are good or bad.
The first question, are these tests supposed to be stable?
For example,
Move CONFIG_UTRACE from the topmost menu into General setup,
near Auditing support.
(this matches the patch we sent for review)
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com
---
init/Kconfig | 18 +-
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
---
In general everything where is a word thread has unstable results and
nonstop tests are also a bit unstable.
So where exactly is the problem in these cases? Are the tests overly
timing-sensitive where there is no actual behavior bug? Or is gdb overly
timing-sensitive where there is no actual
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 09:01:27PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Hello.
This is the new iteration of Roland's utrace patch, this time
with rewrite-ptrace-via-utrace + cleanups in utrace core.
1-7 are already in -mm tree, I am sending them to simplify the
review.
8-12 don not change the
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:17:15 +0100, Roland McGrath wrote:
In general everything where is a word thread has unstable results and
nonstop tests are also a bit unstable.
So where exactly is the problem in these cases? Are the tests overly
timing-sensitive where there is no actual behavior
On 11/25, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 09:01:27PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Hello.
This is the new iteration of Roland's utrace patch, this time
with rewrite-ptrace-via-utrace + cleanups in utrace core.
1-7 are already in -mm tree, I am sending them to simplify
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:31:41 +0100, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
When I get the latest set of ptrace-tests by using.
cvs -d :pserver:anoncvs:anon...@sources.redhat.com:/cvs/systemtap co
ptrace-tests
1. Am I using the right source of ptrace-tests or has its location
changed.
It is right,
Hello!
Please find biarch testing results with or without CONFIG_UTRACE below from 2
Intel and 1 AMD CPU F12 x86_64 systems. gdb-32.sum was for 32-bit run with
32-bit GDB; while gdb-64.sum was for 32-bit run with 64-bit GDB. All logs can
be found at,
http://people.redhat.com/qcai/kratochvil/
Hi Christoph,
The other thing is that this patchset really doesn't quite justify
utrace. It's growing a lot more code without actually growing any
useful functionality. What about all those other utrace killer
features that have been promised for a long time?
We are working on
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 04:40:52PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 11/25, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
I ran the ptrace-tests testsuite [1] on powerpc on the vanilla ptrace
and then with ptrace/utrace. The results for ptrace/utrace look better
:-)
Great! thanks a lot Ananth for
18 matches
Mail list logo
