[ltt-dev] (forw) [chris.meyers.fsu@gmail.com: Re: ltt channel thread safe?]

[pierre-marc.fournier@polymtl.ca (Pierre-Marc Fournier)]

On 08/27/2010 01:01 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Fu Juntang(David) (juntang.fu at windriver.com) 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.

pmf