Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.
RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.

Bug 691700

Summary: systemtap.base/cmd_parse.exp: 16 PASS -> 1 FAIL on i686
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Reporter: Petr Muller <pmuller>
Component: systemtapAssignee: Frank Ch. Eigler <fche>
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX QA Contact: qe-baseos-tools-bugs
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 6.1CC: mjw, ohudlick
Target Milestone: rcKeywords: Regression
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-04-06 15:14:52 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 682670    

Description Petr Muller 2011-03-29 09:55:21 UTC
Description of problem:
The RHEL6.1 candidate systemtap packages has 1 FAIL, 15 PASSes in systemtap.base/cmd_parse.exp testcase, while the 6.0.z systemtap has 16 PASSes here. This happens on i686, it does not happen on ppc64, unknown on s390x and x86_64

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Environment:
kernel-2.6.32-122.el6
elfutils-0.152-1.el6
systemtap-testsuite-1.4-4.el6

Systemtap:
systemtap-1.2-11.el6_0 PASS
systemtap-1.4-4 FAIL

How reproducible:
always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. cd /usr/share/systemtap/testsuite/
2. make RUNTESTFLAGS=systemtap.base/cmd_parse.exp installcheck
3.
  
Actual results:
FAIL

Expected results:
PASS

Additional info:
It seems to be a timeout on this command: 'stap -l vm.*'

Indeed:

systemtap-1.2-11.el6_0:
# time stap -l vm.*
<snip>
real    0m3.207s
user    0m2.466s
sys     0m0.836s

systemtap-1.4-4:
# time stap -l vm.*
<snip>
real    1m3.260s
user    0m45.645s
sys     0m21.606

Comment 2 Petr Muller 2011-04-01 12:11:48 UTC
Happens on x86_64 too.

Comment 3 Mark Wielaard 2011-04-02 19:06:11 UTC
I assume the time difference might be explained by caching versus non-caching.
Does stap -l vm.* still take that long against 1.4-4 on the second run?

If it is just timing, does it pass when you increase the following timeout
in /usr/share/systemtap/testsuite/systemtap.base/cmd_parse.exp 

spawn stap -l {vm.*}
expect {
    -timeout 60
    -re "vm.*" {pass "cmd_parse8"}
    timeout {fail "cmd_parse8: unexpected timeout"}
    eof {fail "cmd_parse8: unexpected EOF"}
}
wait;catch {close}

Say from 60 to 120.

If not, could you run make RUNTESTFLAGS=systemtap.base/cmd_parse.exp installcheck
again and attach the systemtap.log file?

Comment 4 Petr Muller 2011-04-04 12:57:20 UTC
Second run is quick, so it is solved by caching, but that does not explain the speed hit in the first place. Old systemtap was not that slow even with cold cache (these are i686 results: ppc & s390x have a perf hit with old systemtap and cold cache, but not as painful: 20-30s).

NEW:
# rm -rf ~/.systemtap/cache/*
# time stap -l vm.* > /dev/null // cold cache, slow
real    1m20.625s
# time stap -l vm.* > /dev/null // warm cache, fast
real    0m1.499s
# time stap -l vm.* > /dev/null // still warm cache, fast
real    0m1.512s
# rm -rf ~/.systemtap/cache/* 
# time stap -l vm.* > /dev/null // cold cache again, slow
real    1m20.509s

OLD:
# rm -rf ~/.systemtap/cache/*
# time stap -l vm.* > /dev/null // cold cache, slow
real    0m2.789s
# time stap -l vm.* > /dev/null // warm cache, fast
real    0m0.989s
# time stap -l vm.* > /dev/null // still warm cache, fast
real    0m0.955s
# rm -rf ~/.systemtap/cache/* 
# time stap -l vm.* > /dev/null // cold cache again, slow
real    0m2.613s

systemtap.base/cmd_parse8 PASSes with 120 second timeout.

Comment 5 Frank Ch. Eigler 2011-04-06 15:05:37 UTC
New systemtap looks for more tracepoints and more aggressively than
the previous, but I'm not able to reproduce this slowdown.  As the
code still works, but the testsuite needs a little more time, let's
defer this.

Comment 6 RHEL Program Management 2011-04-06 15:14:52 UTC
Development Management has reviewed and declined this request.  You may appeal
this decision by reopening this request.