[lttng-dev] Relayd trace drops

Aravind HT aravind.ht at gmail.com
Mon Dec 28 12:24:47 EST 2015


Hi,

Ive not had a chance to try it on 2.6.1 or 2.7.0 yet, will try and let you
know.
However, I was able to come up with a fix for 2.6.0 and I do not see any
such changes on 2.6.1 or 2.7.0, so forwarding you the patch.


diff -Naur ./src/bin/lttng-sessiond/ust-consumer.c
/tmp/LTTNG_BKP_28_12_1/bin/lttng-sessiond/ust-consumer.c
--- ./src/bin/lttng-sessiond/ust-consumer.c 2015-12-28 07:45:34.610430830
-0800
+++ /tmp/LTTNG_BKP_28_12_1/bin/lttng-sessiond/ust-consumer.c 2015-12-28
07:58:18.906918555 -0800
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+
 /*
  * Copyright (C) 2011 - David Goulet <david.goulet at polymtl.ca>
  *
@@ -486,17 +487,48 @@
  ust_reg = reg_pid->registry->reg.ust;
  }
  assert(ust_reg);
+/* ust_reg->lock can also have been taken from push_metadata making this
metadata request
+*  wait without sending a response to the consumer which gets stuck on the
recv() call
+*  waiting for a response from sessiond. This metadata request from the
consumer would
+*  have taken the stream->lock, do_sync_metadata() making the
push_metadata wait for the stream->lock to be
+*  released, making the sessiond thread pushing the metadata wait on the
recv() for a
+*  response from the consumer, creating a deadlock. So to avoid this
deadlock, making
+*  the request metadata flow to fail incase if sessiond is already pushing
metadata on
+*  its own. */
+        ret = pthread_mutex_trylock(&ust_reg->lock);
+        if(!ret) {
+                ret_push = ust_app_push_metadata(ust_reg, socket, 1);
+                pthread_mutex_unlock(&ust_reg->lock);
+                if (ret_push < 0) {
+ ERR("Error Pushing metadata");
+                /* -EPIPE error would be thrown if the
appRegistry->metada_closed was set,
+                *  this could have happened if ust_app_unregister() was
called when there
+                *  was a problem with the sock ( epoll() ) from
thread_manage_apps(). This
+                *  would have made the current func return an error, upon
which, the whole
+                *  thread_manage_consumer would have been killed. To avoid
this, send
+                *  an error back to consumerd and continue buisness as
usual */
+                 if( ret_push == -EPIPE ) {
+                        DBG("app metadata was closed, so sending ERR msg
to Consumerd\n");
+                        memset(&msg, 0, sizeof(msg));
+                         msg.cmd_type = LTTNG_ERR_UND;
+                        (void) consumer_send_msg(socket, &msg);
+                        ret = 0;
+                 } else {
+                        ret = -1;
+                 }
+        } else {
+                 DBG("UST Consumer metadata pushed successfully");
+                ret = 0;
+         }
+
+        } else {
+                DBG(" ust_reg->lock is taken, cannot push metadata for
this request at present \n");
+                memset(&msg, 0, sizeof(msg));
+                msg.cmd_type = LTTNG_ERR_UND;
+                (void) consumer_send_msg(socket, &msg);
+                ret = 0;

- pthread_mutex_lock(&ust_reg->lock);
- ret_push = ust_app_push_metadata(ust_reg, socket, 1);
- pthread_mutex_unlock(&ust_reg->lock);
- if (ret_push < 0) {
- ERR("Pushing metadata");
- ret = -1;
- goto end;
- }
- DBG("UST Consumer metadata pushed successfully");
- ret = 0;
+        }

 end:
  rcu_read_unlock();


Regards,
Aravind.

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers <
mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com> wrote:

>
> ----- On Dec 16, 2015, at 8:02 AM, Aravind HT <aravind.ht at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Mathieu,
> Ive been able to analyze this sessiond - consumerd hang scenario and I see
> that the fix is not available on 2.6.1 or on 2.7.0.
>
>
> Did you actually reproduce the issue with 2.6.1 or 2.7.0 ? Can we get the
> associated backtrace reproduced on those versions ?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mathieu
>
>
> Root Cause :
>
> The hang is mainly caused because of a race condition for the
> consumer_metadata_socket between the following two flows of code
> Flow 1. do_sync_metadata() -> lttng_ustconsumer_sync_metadat() ->
> lttng_ustconsumer_request_metadata() -> lttncomm_recv_unix_sock() ->
> recvmsg()
>
> and
>
> Flow 2. lttng_consumer_recv_cmd() -> lttng_ust_consumer_recv_cmd() ->
> lttng_ustconsumer_recv_metadata()
>
> Flow 1 above initiates a metadata requests and recvmsg()s for the reply
> from sessiond on the consumer_metadata_socket ( it has taken the
> metadata_socket_lock and the stream->lock ) , but simultaneously this
> socket is being polled from Flow 2. Once in a while Flow 2 gets to receive
> while Flow 1 just hangs on recvmsg() . Since Flow 1 has taken the
> stream->lock, this then introduces a deadlock at a later stage
> (on_buffer_ready() when the metadata is being flushed. )
>
> Think using the metadata_socket_lock in Flow 2 before attempting to
> receive may address this issue, but is a bit complicated as the message
> would have already been received at the point of using that lock. The other
> alternative is to remove the complete recv() from Flow 1 and let that be
> taken care by Flow 2.
>
> Please let me know if this has been fixed in the later builds, may be I
> searched it wrong.
>
>
> Regards,
> Aravind.
>
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 4:13 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers <
> mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Please upgrade to 2.6.1 or 2.7.0, those are old issues.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Mathieu
>>
>>
>> ----- On Dec 11, 2015, at 1:42 PM, Aravind HT <aravind.ht at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> NPBS understand it, I will continue to investigate this, got a bit side
>> tracked with the sessiond hang issue that I mentioned earlier.
>> Making some progress on that, will update as soon as I find the root
>> cause, it looks like a mutex deadlock between
>> the following threads in the consumerd daemon
>>
>> #1  0x0000000000410b5d in lttcomm_recv_unix_sock (sock=26, buf=buf at entry=0x7f16acca57f0,
>> len=len at entry=4476) at unix.c:175
>> #2  0x000000000041dc96 in lttng_ustconsumer_request_metadata
>> (ctx=ctx at entry=0x640d10, channel=0x7f16980192b0, timer=timer at entry=0,
>> wait=wait at entry=0) at ust-consumer.c:2331
>> #3  0x000000000041ff3c in lttng_ustconsumer_sync_metadata (ctx=ctx at entry=0x640d10,
>> metadata=metadata at entry=0x7f169801aa40) at ust-consumer.c:1829
>> #4  0x000000000040eabf in do_sync_metadata (ctx=<optimized out>,
>> metadata=<optimized out>) at consumer-stream.c:468
>> #5  consumer_stream_sync_metadata (ctx=ctx at entry=0x640d10, session_id=8)
>> at consumer-stream.c:545
>> #6  0x000000000041d316 in lttng_ustconsumer_read_subbuffer
>> (stream=stream at entry=0x7f1698018fa0, ctx=ctx at entry=0x640d10) at
>> ust-consumer.c:2063
>> #7  0x000000000040b613 in lttng_consumer_read_subbuffer
>> (stream=0x7f1698018fa0, ctx=0x640d10) at consumer.c:3203
>> #8  0x0000000000409608 in consumer_thread_data_poll (data=0x640d10) at
>> consumer.c:2557
>> #9  0x00007f16af6a6fe3 in start_thread (arg=0x7f16acca7700) at
>> pthread_create.c:312
>> #10 0x00007f16af3dcafd in clone () at
>> ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/clone.S:111
>>
>> and
>>
>> consumer_thread_metadata_poll() calling lttng_consumer_read_subbuffer() /
>> on_buffer_ready() calling pthread_mutex_lock(stream->lock) and then hanging
>>
>>
>> This again can be reproduced by the same script, just running consecutive
>> sessions of short duration (<10 seconds) with traces getting captured on a
>> remote node.
>> I hit this every time I run the script.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Aravind.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Jonathan Rajotte Julien <
>> Jonathan.rajotte-julien at efficios.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Aravind,
>>>
>>> On 2015-12-11 12:16 PM, Aravind HT wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Did you get a chance to reproduce the problem with the scripts ? Let me
>>>> know if you need any help running it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Time is a scarce resource unfortunately. But until I have the time to
>>> look at it you might want to investigate if you are able to reproduce it on
>>> 2.6.1/2.7.0/master on 2 regular (x86_64, ubuntu/debian) VM this would
>>> really help.
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>>
>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Aravind.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Aravind HT <aravind.ht at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:aravind.ht at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     Sorry about that, not sure how it got missed.
>>>>     Here it is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     # This needs a two node set up (1. local current node 2. remote
>>>> node )
>>>>     # relayd runs on the current node where traces are captured from
>>>>     the remote node
>>>>     # remote node runs test applications which generate traces.
>>>>     # the launch_script_RN is executed on the current node and uses
>>>>     ssh  to execute commands on the remote node. So this part may not
>>>>     work in every case and may prompt for a password.
>>>>     # if experiencing problems with ssh , kindly check
>>>>
>>>> http://serverfault.com/questions/241588/how-to-automate-ssh-login-with-password
>>>>
>>>>     # ====================       To Run  =============================
>>>>     launch_script_RN.py self_profile -c /tmp/configFile.txt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     # configFile.txt is the file which has configuration params that
>>>>     launchScript
>>>>     # needs to configure lttng sessions. Below is an explanation of
>>>>     the different options.
>>>>     # ===================     configFile.txt
>>>> =============================
>>>>
>>>>     [section1]
>>>>     # final out put file path
>>>>     OutputFile = /tmp/Final_report.txt
>>>>     # the remote node hostname on which test applications run and the
>>>>     test sessions will be created; this should be something that could
>>>>     be used with ssh. Traces will be transported from this node to the
>>>>     lttng_relayd running on the current node.
>>>>     Node = MY_REMOTE_NODE
>>>>     # Sub buffer size to start this with
>>>>     SubBufSize = 16k
>>>>     # Sub buffer count
>>>>     SubBufCount = 4
>>>>     # per uid buffer
>>>>     BufferScheme = --buffers-uid
>>>>     # yes
>>>>     EnableTracing = yes
>>>>     # Bit rate of the test applications. Comman seperated example "1,
>>>>     3, 3, 50" sayss 4 test applications producing 1, 3, 3, and 50 Kb/s
>>>>     traces.
>>>>     # So with the below, we just start with 1 test application
>>>>     producing 10 kb/s
>>>>     TestApps = 10
>>>>     # session life time in seonds
>>>>     TestTime = 10
>>>>     # Max number of successive sessions to configure. if n then n-1
>>>>     sessions are run, ex MaxRun = 2 will run 1 session.
>>>>     MaxRun = 100
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     # ====================  Place the following files under
>>>>     ===============
>>>>
>>>>     # /tmp on the remote node
>>>>     clean_RemNode_apps.sh
>>>>     report_lttng_script.sh
>>>>
>>>>     # rest of the scripts under /usr/sbin on the current local node on
>>>>     which lttng_realyd runs
>>>>     # Define a trace point MY_TRACE to take a single string arg with
>>>>     LOG_TEST_APP_PROFILING as the provider, compile test lttng_testApp
>>>>     and place it under /usr/sbin of the remote host
>>>>
>>>>     # in launch_script_RN.py change currentNodeIP to the IP address on
>>>>     which relayd is receiving, default ports are used.
>>>>
>>>>     # lttng_relayd is started as
>>>>     /usr/bin/lttng-relayd -o /var/log/lttng-traces -d
>>>>
>>>>     # lttng_sessiond is started as
>>>>     /usr/bin/lttng-sessiond --consumerd32-path
>>>>     /usr/lib/lttng/libexec/lttng-consumerd --consumerd32-libdir
>>>>     /usr/lib/ --consumerd64-path
>>>>     /usr/lib64/lttng/libexec/lttng-consumerd --consumerd64-libdir
>>>>     /usr/lib64/ -b --no-kernel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Regards,
>>>>     Aravind.
>>>>
>>>>     On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Jonathan Rajotte Julien
>>>>     <Jonathan.rajotte-julien at efficios.com
>>>>     <mailto:Jonathan.rajotte-julien at efficios.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         Hi Aravind,
>>>>
>>>>         There is no README in the archive you sent.
>>>>
>>>>         Cheers
>>>>
>>>>         On 2015-12-08 07:51 AM, Aravind HT wrote:
>>>>
>>>>             Hi,
>>>>
>>>>             I am trying to upgrade in parallel, but this issue may
>>>>             still be present after I upgrade or may be temporarily
>>>>             masked. So I need to find the root cause for this and then
>>>>             see if its available on the latest before committing to
>>>>             upgrade.
>>>>
>>>>             There is another issue i'm hitting, the lttng list command
>>>>             hangs after lttng destroy session when running the
>>>> profiling.
>>>>
>>>>             I found that consumerd 64 goes into an infinite loop
>>>>             waiting to flush metadata in
>>>>             lttng_ustconsumer_recv_metadata() :: while
>>>>             (consumer_metadata_cache_flushed(channel, offset + len,
>>>>             timer)) .
>>>>             In consumer_metadata_cache,
>>>>             channel->metadata_stream->endpoint_status is
>>>>             CONSUMER_ENDPOINT_ACTIVE,
>>>>             metadata_stream->ust_metadata_pushed is 0 with offset
>>>>             having some value. This call always returns a 1 from the
>>>>             last else{} block resulting in an infinite loop. Upon
>>>>             searching the forum, I found the same issue being reported
>>>>             here :
>>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org/msg07982.html
>>>>
>>>>             Regards,
>>>>             Aravind.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>             On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Jonathan Rajotte
>>>>             <jonathan.r.julien at gmail.com
>>>>             <mailto:jonathan.r.julien at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>                 Hi Aravind,
>>>>
>>>>                 Did you have the chance to upgrade to 2.6.1.If so
>>>>             where you able
>>>>                 to reproduce?
>>>>
>>>>                 Cheers
>>>>
>>>>                 On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Aravind HT
>>>>             <aravind.ht at gmail.com <mailto:aravind.ht at gmail.com>>
>>>>                 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>                     Hi,
>>>>
>>>>                     I have attached the complete profiling scripts
>>>>             here, its a bit
>>>>                     shabby, im new to python.
>>>>
>>>>                     There is a README which has the details on how to
>>>>             execute it.
>>>>                     Im using a Yocto 1.6 on x86_64 platforms on both
>>>>             the nodes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                     Running this script when there are other sessions
>>>>             running
>>>>                     seems to reproduce this problem easily.
>>>>                     Please try it and let me know if you have any issues
>>>>                     reproducing the problem.
>>>>
>>>>                     Regards,
>>>>                     Aravind.
>>>>
>>>>                     On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Jérémie Galarneau
>>>>                     <jeremie.galarneau at efficios.com
>>>>             <mailto:jeremie.galarneau at efficios.com>
>>>>                     <mailto:jeremie.galarneau at efficios.com
>>>>             <mailto:jeremie.galarneau at efficios.com>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>                         On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Aravind HT
>>>>                         <aravind.ht at gmail.com
>>>>             <mailto:aravind.ht at gmail.com> <mailto:aravind.ht at gmail.com
>>>>
>>>>             <mailto:aravind.ht at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>>>                         > I am using 2.6.0 .I will try to share the
>>>>             code that I'm
>>>>                         using here in some
>>>>                         > time. If there are any specific fixes that
>>>>             are relevant
>>>>                         to this issue, see
>>>>                         > if you can provide a link to them. I would
>>>>             ideally like
>>>>                         to try them out
>>>>                         > before trying a full upgrade to the latest
>>>>             versions.
>>>>
>>>>                         Hi,
>>>>
>>>>                         Can you provide more information on the
>>>>             system? Which
>>>>                         distribution,
>>>>                         architecture, kernel version?
>>>>
>>>>                         The verbose sessiond logs might help pinpoint
>>>> any
>>>>                         unexpected behaviour
>>>>                         here (are all applications registering as
>>>>             expected?).
>>>>
>>>>                         Jérémie
>>>>
>>>>                         >
>>>>                         > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Jérémie
>>>>             Galarneau
>>>>                         > <jeremie.galarneau at efficios.com
>>>>             <mailto:jeremie.galarneau at efficios.com>
>>>>                         <mailto:jeremie.galarneau at efficios.com
>>>>             <mailto:jeremie.galarneau at efficios.com>>> wrote:
>>>>                         >>
>>>>                         >> Hi Aravind,
>>>>                         >>
>>>>                         >> Can't say I have looked at everything you
>>>>             sent yet, but
>>>>                         as a
>>>>                         >> preemptive question, which version are we
>>>>             talking about
>>>>                         here? 2.6.0 or
>>>>                         >> 2.6.1? 2.6.1 contains a lot of relay daemon
>>>>             fixes.
>>>>                         >>
>>>>                         >> Thanks,
>>>>                         >> Jérémie
>>>>                         >>
>>>>                         >> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 7:01 AM, Aravind HT
>>>>                         <aravind.ht at gmail.com
>>>>             <mailto:aravind.ht at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>                         >> > Hi,
>>>>                         >> >
>>>>                         >> > I am trying to obtain the performance
>>>>             characteristics
>>>>                         of lttng with the
>>>>                         >> > use
>>>>                         >> > of test applications. Traces are being
>>>>             produced on a
>>>>                         local node and
>>>>                         >> > delivered to relayd that is running on a
>>>>             separate
>>>>                         node for storage.
>>>>                         >> >
>>>>                         >> > An lttng session with the test
>>>>             applications producing
>>>>                         an initial bit
>>>>                         >> > rate of
>>>>                         >> > 10 kb/s is started and run for about 30
>>>>             seconds. The
>>>>                         starting sub-buffer
>>>>                         >> > size is kept at 128 kb and sub-buf count
>>>>             at 4. The
>>>>                         session is then
>>>>                         >> > stopped
>>>>                         >> > and destroyed and traces are analyzed to
>>>>             see if there
>>>>                         are any drops.
>>>>                         >> > This is
>>>>                         >> > being done in a loop with every
>>>>             subsequent session
>>>>                         having an increment
>>>>                         >> > of 2
>>>>                         >> > kb/s as long as there are no drops. If
>>>>             there are
>>>>                         drops, I increase the
>>>>                         >> > buffer size by a factor of x2 without
>>>>             incrementing
>>>>                         the bit rate.
>>>>                         >> >
>>>>                         >> > I see trace drops happening consistently
>>>>             with test
>>>>                         apps producing traces
>>>>                         >> > at
>>>>                         >> > less than 40 kb/s, it doesnt seem to help
>>>>             even if I
>>>>                         started with 1mb x 4
>>>>                         >> > sub-buffers.
>>>>                         >> >
>>>>                         >> > Analysis :
>>>>                         >> >
>>>>                         >> > I have attached the lttng_relayd ,
>>>>             lttng_consumerd_64
>>>>                         logs and the
>>>>                         >> > entire
>>>>                         >> > trace directory, hope you will be able to
>>>>             view it.
>>>>                         >> > I have modified lttng_relayd code to dump
>>>>             the traces
>>>>                         being captured in
>>>>                         >> > the
>>>>                         >> > lttng_relayd logs along with debug info.
>>>>                         >> >
>>>>                         >> > Each test app is producing logs in the
>>>>             form of  :
>>>>                         >> > "TraceApp PID - 31940 THID - 31970
>>>>             @threadRate - 1032
>>>>                         b/s appRate - 2079
>>>>                         >> > b/s
>>>>                         >> > threadTraceNum - 9 appTraceNum - 18
>>>>      sleepTime - 192120"
>>>>                         >> >
>>>>                         >> > The test application PID, test
>>>>             application thread id,
>>>>                         thread bit rate,
>>>>                         >> > test
>>>>                         >> > app bit rate, thread trace number and
>>>>             application
>>>>                         trace number s are
>>>>                         >> > part of
>>>>                         >> > the trace. So in the above trace, the
>>>>             thread is
>>>>                         producing at 1 kb/s and
>>>>                         >> > the
>>>>                         >> > whole test app is producing at 2 kb/s.
>>>>                         >> >
>>>>                         >> > If we look at the babeltrace out put, we
>>>>             see that the
>>>>                         Trace with
>>>>                         >> > TraceApp
>>>>                         >> > PID - 31940 appTraceNum 2 is missing ,
>>>>             with 1, 3, 4,
>>>>                         5 and so on being
>>>>                         >> > successfully captured.
>>>>                         >> > I looked at the lttng_relayd logs and
>>>>             found that
>>>>                         trace of "appTraceNum
>>>>                         >> > 2" is
>>>>                         >> > not delivered/generated by the consumerd
>>>>             to the
>>>>                         relayd in sequence with
>>>>                         >> > other traces. To rule out that this is
>>>>             not a test
>>>>                         application problem,
>>>>                         >> > you
>>>>                         >> > can look at line ltttng_relayd log :
>>>>             12778 and see
>>>>                         traces from
>>>>                         >> > appTraceNum -
>>>>                         >> > 1 to appTraceNum - 18 including the
>>>>             appTraceNum 2 are
>>>>                         "re-delivered" by
>>>>                         >> > the
>>>>                         >> > consumerd to the relayd.
>>>>                         >> > Essentially, I see appTraceNum 1 through
>>>>             appTraceNum
>>>>                         18 being delivered
>>>>                         >> > twice, once individually where
>>>>             appTraceNum 2 is
>>>>                         missing and once as a
>>>>                         >> > group
>>>>                         >> > at line 12778 where its present.
>>>>                         >> >
>>>>                         >> >
>>>>                         >> > Request help with
>>>>                         >> > 1. why traces are delivered twice, is it
>>>>             by design or
>>>>                         a genuine problem
>>>>                         >> > ?
>>>>                         >> > 2. how to avoid traces being dropped even
>>>>             though
>>>>                         buffers are
>>>>                         >> > sufficiently
>>>>                         >> > large enough ?
>>>>                         >> >
>>>>                         >> >
>>>>                         >> > Regards,
>>>>                         >> > Aravind.
>>>>                         >> >
>>>>                         >> >
>>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>>                         >> > lttng-dev mailing list
>>>>                         >> > lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org
>>>>             <mailto:lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org>
>>>>                         >> >
>>>>             http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
>>>>                         >> >
>>>>                         >>
>>>>                         >>
>>>>                         >>
>>>>                         >> --
>>>>                         >> Jérémie Galarneau
>>>>                         >> EfficiOS Inc.
>>>>                         >> http://www.efficios.com
>>>>                         >
>>>>                         >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                         --
>>>>                         Jérémie Galarneau
>>>>                         EfficiOS Inc.
>>>>             http://www.efficios.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>>                     lttng-dev mailing list
>>>>             lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org
>>>>             <mailto:lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org>
>>>>             <mailto:lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org
>>>>             <mailto:lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org>>
>>>>             http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                 --     Jonathan Rajotte Julien
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>>             lttng-dev mailing list
>>>>             lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org <mailto:lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org
>>>> >
>>>>             http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         --         Jonathan R. Julien
>>>>         Efficios
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Jonathan R. Julien
>>> Efficios
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> lttng-dev mailing list
>> lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org
>> http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mathieu Desnoyers
>> EfficiOS Inc.
>> http://www.efficios.com
>>
>
>
> --
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> EfficiOS Inc.
> http://www.efficios.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lttng.org/pipermail/lttng-dev/attachments/20151228/9ea8fa19/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the lttng-dev mailing list