Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 22:41:07 +0200 From: Juergen Lock <nox@jelal.kn-bremen.de> To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: dtrace: processing aborted: Abort due to systemic unresponsiveness (dtrace_gethrtime()?) - and kgdb Message-ID: <20080917204107.GA11167@saturn.kn-bremen.de>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi! I got curious in dtrace, and after mr's sys/amd64/amd64/trap.c commit (r183050, thanx! :) I was able to build a kernel that could kldload dtraceall on 7-stable amd64, but trying even simple things like dtrace -n tick-1sec only runs for a short time, or not at all, ending with $subject: # dtrace -n tick-1sec dtrace: description 'tick-1sec' matched 1 probe dtrace: buffer size lowered to 2m CPU ID FUNCTION:NAME 1 32125 :tick-1sec dtrace: processing aborted: Abort due to systemic unresponsiveness # dtrace -n tick-1sec dtrace: description 'tick-1sec' matched 1 probe dtrace: buffer size lowered to 2m dtrace: processing aborted: Abort due to systemic unresponsiveness # Looking around on the net I find that this is probably related to dtrace_gethrtime() (this box is SMP), which I see defined in sys/amd64/amd64/tsc.c, but also in sys/cddl/dev/dtrace/amd64/dtrace_subr.c, and in sys/cddl/dev/dtrace/i386/dtrace_subr.c, but nowhere under sys/i386. The versions in sys/cddl/dev/dtrace take cpu-dependent tsc offsets into account which the one in sys/amd64/amd64/tsc.c doesn't, is there any particular reason this version is used? Also I don't see it in HEAD... Wondering, Juergen PS: I also found out that kgdb doesn't seem to like dtrace bits in the kernel, backtraces look like from a kernel without debug symbols, even if I don't use dtrace or even kldload it.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080917204107.GA11167>