An interesting case occurred because of recursion.
for (i = 1; istrlen(printarg); i++)
{
printone(printarg[i]);
}
became optimised with strict recursion so that it never actually
returned to the calling function. As a result, ustackdepth never got
incremented and I needed to
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 04:18:21PM -0500, Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz wrote:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Chad Mynhier cmynh...@gmail.com wrote:
#define STACKDEPTHBASE 2
It appears that instead of doing this, I would have to set up
BEGIN
{
self-startdepth = ustackdepth;
}
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Jonathan Adams jonathan.ad...@sun.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 04:18:21PM -0500, Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz wrote:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Chad Mynhier cmynh...@gmail.com wrote:
#define STACKDEPTHBASE 2
It appears that instead of doing this, I
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Chad Mynhier cmynh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
sabbahil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Chad Mynhier cmynh...@gmail.com wrote:
#define STACKDEPTHBASE 2
I don't follow why this is set to
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
sabbahil...@gmail.com wrote:
When I tried to set up with a probe at
pid$target::main:entry with a printf inside it, I got no output.
However, I did get a main:return from
pid:target:hello::return
I do not understand why that is
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Chad Mynhier cmynh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
sabbahil...@gmail.com wrote:
When I tried to set up with a probe at
pid$target::main:entry with a printf inside it, I got no output.
However, I did get a
In testing the code that you sent I did find a slight problem. It did
not work with the STACKDEPTHBASE definition. However, I defined a
variable
self-mydepth[probemod, ustackdepth] = ustackdepth;
This gets defined when self-func[probemod, ustackdepth] gets defined
and zeroed when self-func gets
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
sabbahil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Chad Mynhier cmynh...@gmail.com wrote:
#define STACKDEPTHBASE 2
I don't follow why this is set to 2. I included a syscall count to
also see how many times a function is
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Chad Mynhier cmynh...@gmail.com wrote:
This was just an observation that ustackdepth showed up as 2 on entry
to main(). What I really should have done would be to set the base as
a thread-local variable in the pid$target::main:entry probe.
And this would
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Chad Mynhier cmynh...@gmail.com wrote:
#define STACKDEPTHBASE 2
I don't follow why this is set to 2. I included a syscall count to
also see how many times a function is entered and the initialization
function did not show up in the time. Shouldn't the index be
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Chad Mynhier cmynh...@gmail.com wrote:
#define STACKDEPTHBASE 2
It appears that instead of doing this, I would have to set up
BEGIN
{
self-startdepth = ustackdepth;
}
This would allow the depth to be whatever the actual base depth is.
The value used here
When tracing user functions, how are recursive functions handled. For
example, the following code processes the time spent within user
dynamic modules. The modules have user created dynamic libraries :
MyLib1.so, MyLib2.so, ... I would also like to know if there is
someting already in the dtrace
Hi Sabba:
You can use the ustackdepth variable. This has the stack depth in the user
land. So use that as the array index.
-Angelo
On Dec 16, 2009, at 1:52 PM, Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz wrote:
When tracing user functions, how are recursive functions handled. For
example, the following code
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
sabbahil...@gmail.com wrote:
As can be seen, if recursive code is used, the self-ts gets reset to
timestamp with every entry, and the innermost exit causes a time to be
calculated and the ts to be reset. The rest of the returns within
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Chad Mynhier cmynh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
sabbahil...@gmail.com wrote:
As can be seen, if recursive code is used, the self-ts gets reset to
timestamp with every entry, and the innermost exit causes a time
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
sabbahil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Chad Mynhier cmynh...@gmail.com wrote:
You'll need to keep an array of timestamps indexed on ustackdepth.
Something like this (it appears that ustackdepth on entry doesn't
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Chad Mynhier cmynh...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, there's a bug in the above. For this case:
- A
- B
- C
- C
- B
- A
The time for B will include the time spent in C, and the time for A
will include the entire time.
Actually, the
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
sabbahil...@gmail.com wrote:
However, what I am worried about is a set where
-A
-B
-C
-C
-B
-A
-D
-C
-C
-D
This would seem to not aggregate the C as the ustackdepth for the two
usages of C would be different.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Chad Mynhier cmynh...@gmail.com wrote:
So here you want to see the exclusive time spent in A at each level of
recursion? Then you'd need to add ustackdepth (or some variable of
your own that's keeping track of recursion depth) as in index to your
aggregation.
19 matches
Mail list logo
