* Pierre-Marc Fournier ([email protected]) wrote: > On 08/27/2010 01:01 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> * Fu Juntang(David) ([email protected]) wrote: >>> Hi,Mathieu: >>> has the issue any update? >>> >>> please see my test case and the trace logs(in the attachment), from >>> the trace log,we can see we can only see the trace datas from cpu_0: >>> ust.myevent: 18161.506516049 >>> (/home/Large_Space/Part_B/LogStore/LTTngLog_wrlinux-4.0/UST/UST_Logs/multi-thread/david-desktop-20100811163524864824113/11520_5504068123890634635/ust_0), >>> 0, 0, , , 0, 0x0, MODE_UNKNOWN { firstthread = 2 } >>> ust.myevent: 18163.506594856 >>> (/home/Large_Space/Part_B/LogStore/LTTngLog_wrlinux-4.0/UST/UST_Logs/multi-thread/david-desktop-20100811163524864824113/11520_5504068123890634635/ust_0), >>> 0, 0, , , 0, 0x0, MODE_UNKNOWN { firstthread = 3 } >>> ust.myevent: 18165.506667869 >>> (/home/Large_Space/Part_B/LogStore/LTTngLog_wrlinux-4.0/UST/UST_Logs/multi-thread/david-desktop-20100811163524864824113/11520_5504068123890634635/ust_0), >>> 0, 0, , , 0, 0x0, MODE_UNKNOWN { firstthread = 5 } >>> ust.myevent: 18167.506735881 >>> (/home/Large_Space/Part_B/LogStore/LTTngLog_wrlinux-4.0/UST/UST_Logs/multi-thread/david-desktop-20100811163524864824113/11520_5504068123890634635/ust_0), >>> 0, 0, , , 0, 0x0, MODE_UNKNOWN { firstthread = 7 } >>> ust.myevent: 18169.506818732 >>> (/home/Large_Space/Part_B/LogStore/LTTngLog_wrlinux-4.0/UST/UST_Logs/multi-thread/david-desktop-20100811163524864824113/11520_5504068123890634635/ust_0), >>> 0, 0, , , 0, 0x0, MODE_UNKNOWN { firstthread = 8 } >>> ust.myevent: 18171.506903062 >>> (/home/Large_Space/Part_B/LogStore/LTTngLog_wrlinux-4.0/UST/UST_Logs/multi-thread/david-desktop-20100811163524864824113/11520_5504068123890634635/ust_0), >>> 0, 0, , , 0, 0x0, MODE_UNKNOWN { firstthread = 10 } >>> End trace set >>> >>> we missed the trace logs: >>> trace_mark(ust, myevent, "secondthread %d", number); >> >> Oh, you created two events with same channel and same name, but with a >> different first parameter name. This should be forbidden. UST should >> take care of checking for these duplicate markers with non-matching >> parameters. >> >> libust marker.c is checking for this, as it should: >> >> static int set_marker(struct marker_entry *entry, struct marker *elem, >> int active) >> { >> int ret = 0; >> WARN_ON(strcmp(entry->name, elem->name) != 0); >> >> if (entry->format) { >> if (strcmp(entry->format, elem->format) != 0) { >> DBG("Format mismatch for probe %s (%s), marker (%s)", >> entry->name, >> entry->format, >> elem->format); >> return -EPERM; >> } >> } else { >> >> Pierre-Marc, why it this only showing the warning if UST_DEBUG is >> defined ? This should always spit out the warning. >> > > Agreed, it should probably be a WARN or ERR.
Nils/David, do you want to make a patch for this ? pmf, I guess handing me a commit access might be handy. Thanks! Mathieu > > pmf > -- Mathieu Desnoyers Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com _______________________________________________ ltt-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
