Hello Mathieu, 2011/12/30 Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]>: >> From another log system I can tell the traced program is going well, >> so this is probably a problem with the way I use LTTng. >> [...] >> The target system is running a 2.6.33.9 kernel, so the futex workaround >> is active. Could it be the cause of this gap? > > I doubt it.
ok >> Or maybe the buffers get full? But I have not seen any message telling >> so. I tried the >> --subbuf-size (I'm not sure what a subbuffer is though) with no >> success: lttng list reported no >> change in the subbuffer size. I was trying to change the subbuffer size while the channel was in use. It now makes sense. I just did a few test with increased buffer size and have seen no more gap. > However, the information is available in the trace files, so I have a TODO > item > somewhere on my todo list to make babeltrace print a warning when it > figures out that events have been dropped. That would be a good think, we need to know if we can trust reconstructed states or not. Thank you once again Best regards -- Sébastien _______________________________________________ lttng-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
