similar to: 6370454 dtrace should support USDT probes in static functions

Hi, I''m posting a question hoping someone will know the answer off hand thereby reducing my search time. :-) With USDT probes, the tracepoint is only installed by libdtrace itself, never by the drti ioctl. So whenever I run a program with an USDT probe, no tracepoint is installed. Only after I run the dtrace command the tracepoint is actually installed on the victim process. My question

Author: ahl Repository: /hg/zfs-crypto/gate Revision: 72ce7e116da4db6c063a5c3c3f1bec23ce3ca69a Log message: 6395902 use of USDT probes can cause plockstat and other scripts to fail Files: update: usr/src/lib/libdtrace/common/dt_pid.c

X.Org has adopted GNU autoconf as its build configuration mechanism, so when I integrated the dtrace probes, I checked to see if they should be built using this test, checking for the existence of a program named "dtrace" in the path: dnl Check for dtrace program (needed to build Xserver dtrace probes) AC_ARG_WITH(dtrace, AS_HELP_STRING([--with-dtrace=PATH], [Enable dtrace

Author: bmc Repository: /hg/zfs-crypto/gate Revision: 213bfe03af413cdf71c523fb076aaa65a6306a7e Log message: 6256581 System got a hang or a panic with dtrace+kmdb 6264573 unanchored dtrace_getpcstack is rather imprecise toward function end 6289517 dtrace doesn''t like fd_intr anymore 6291378 dtrace helpers can interfere with the use of kmdb 6295554 dtrace doesn''t report

Author: ahl Repository: /hg/zfs-crypto/gate Revision: a2677fc0a5fb6895ed56fc4698646ece44978a48 Log message: 4970475 There should be a stackdepth equivalent for userland 5084954 value of dip can be incorrect in autovec 6181505 dtrace sysinfo:::modload probe does not fire when using ''modload'' 6265417 schedctl-yield isn''t listed in sdt_subr.c 6272558 gcc and dtrace

Hi, As I''ve discussed before whenever we add USDT probes to a C++ function and call dtrace -l we get the mangled C++ name for the dtrace function, being listed :( Now the point of USDT probes is to abstract a higher level semantic construct for users to make use of. Surely it is not meant to be listing Unstable Interfaces (implementation details), such as the containing C++

Hi All, I''ve got a problem when I have USDT probes in a static library and in the application code outside of the library. I build the static library containing some USDT probes, glomming everything together (ld -r) before creating the .a file to preserve the probe symbols. This all works fine. I build an application which also has some USDT probes. When I build the application which

while trying to use the USDT made available to us in Postgresql database I have problems enabling them. On my database server I ran 1024+ PG processes (1024 clients). The server is a 8 core T2000 @1000MHz. 32GB. 7 storage arrays. Solaris 10 Update 4. Home compiled PG 8.3 beta 1 (optimized binary for T1 chip) with DTrace probes enabled. When running without enabling the probes I have approx 25%

[Perhaps someone could rename this list to dtrace-matt-problems-discuss?] If I run this script against my binary (which contains a USDT probe called ''concurrentq-latency''): ::: / probename == "concurrentq-latency" / { printf("[%s]:[%s]:[%s]\n", probeprov, probefunc, probename); } I get this output: dtrace: script ''testq.d'' matched 46056

How do I query an application to see if it supports any USDT probe points?

Hi people, When working with some usdt C++ probes we have come across a few issues. Controlling USDT Function name: Putting in usdt probes into C++ code gives you the mangled enclosing function name for the probes Function name. Working around this can be a pain. You need to wrap your usdt probes in extern C functions and call these. Could we have an option to control the Function name for

In the context of support not only IFunc but DTrace, what kind of features do you want to add to lld, if you have a chance to implement it in the linker instead of a post-processing tool? I wonder if we can solve both of your problems. On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 1:33 AM Mark Johnston <markj at freebsd.org> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:11:00AM -0400, Ed Maste wrote: > > On 22

I added a couple of static probes to Firefox to measure actual work done. I could have used a pid$target probe with a function name but work is done within an if statement, which is where I placed the static probes. I''m wondering about my use, though. Is the following significantly more efficient than pid$target::FunName:entry and return? I heard somewhere that $target does not

Hello, If I release a new kernel module, do I need to release a SDT provider with it? Just like what "mdb" does - a mdb module together with the associated kernel module. Is it a "MUST" or a "OPTION"? Also what''s the requirement of USDT and user application? Is it encouraged or not to have many probes inside the code? Can I define my own

Does anyone has any ideas about this problem? 2008/1/15, ?? TaoJie <eulertao at gmail.com>: > > Hi all: > > I''m working on revealing system performance now. > My testing program is an infinite loop. Inside the loop, it will do some > mathematical opertaions and call function callee(), then go to the next > loop. > I install a alarm(30) in the program. It

Hi list, I''m currently trying to build a sdt provider into an application. Before we moved our code into the code itself, parts of the provider were provided by an extension loaded by the program. As a result the function-entry probe already exists. Now if I compile my program with my probes which reimplement function-entry (so provider name and probe name match), I get the following

Hi, If you have a custom kernel (and therefore have duplicates of everything in /kernel in your custom kernel) and have noticed that when you try to use anonymous tracing, dtrace adds multiple copies of the forceload directives to /etc/system, e.g.: * vvvv Added by DTrace * * The following forceload directives were added by dtrace(1M) to allow for * tracing during boot. If these

Hi all, What is the correct way to give one non-root user the ability to use DTrace with providers running in a process by another user? Through the Web Stack project and some work by Ludovic Champenois and Nasser Nouri, we have done a bit of work to bring together parts of chime, the Web Stack Apache, Ruby and PHP providers, and stuff reused from the DTrace toolkit. It''s in

I have inserted some probes in my application, and it works great in the "debug build" I have been using. So I wanted to look at the "overhead" introduced by inactive dtrace probes in my application. I am using the Sun Studio 11 compiler, so I added the following options: -xO5 -g0 -xbuiltin But this breaks the linking of my application. Undefined first

Hi all, Has there been any progress with libtools DTrace USDT support http://www.mail-archive.com/libtool at gnu.org/msg10587.html thanks ----- Original Message ----- >From Charles Koester <charles.koester at oracle.com> Date Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:01:17 -0800 To Marina Fisher <marina.fisher at sun.com> Subject DTrace & libtool "best practices" Greetings,