New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Linux guest: Add a delay when falling back to strace #1007

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@drmn

drmn commented Jul 13, 2016

It was needed for strace to catch sample execution correctly.

Linux guest: Add a delay when falling back to strace
so that it can catch sample execution.
@jbremer

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jbremer

jbremer Aug 17, 2016

Member

Generally speaking I'd rather not have time.sleep() calls with arbitrary values. What about polling the filesize of the strace/straced file every second or so, and returning from the function once it's not zero anymore (i.e., strace has written something to it and thus is initialized)?

Member

jbremer commented Aug 17, 2016

Generally speaking I'd rather not have time.sleep() calls with arbitrary values. What about polling the filesize of the strace/straced file every second or so, and returning from the function once it's not zero anymore (i.e., strace has written something to it and thus is initialized)?

@drmn

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@drmn

drmn Sep 4, 2016

Thanks for your comment. I will try to improve it reflecting your input.

drmn commented Sep 4, 2016

Thanks for your comment. I will try to improve it reflecting your input.

@jbremer

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jbremer

jbremer Sep 23, 2016

Member

Any luck @drmn? :-)

Member

jbremer commented Sep 23, 2016

Any luck @drmn? :-)

@drmn

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@drmn

drmn Oct 2, 2016

Apologies the delay—2nd try!

drmn commented Oct 2, 2016

Apologies the delay—2nd try!

@jbremer

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jbremer

jbremer Oct 2, 2016

Member

Could you replace the try/catch approach with a if not os.path.exists(...): continue? Bit neater imo.

Member

jbremer commented Oct 2, 2016

Could you replace the try/catch approach with a if not os.path.exists(...): continue? Bit neater imo.

@drmn

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@drmn

drmn Oct 2, 2016

Thanks for your comment. Yes I agree and fixed, and noticed/fixed that previous code would loop without sleep until file generation.

drmn commented Oct 2, 2016

Thanks for your comment. Yes I agree and fixed, and noticed/fixed that previous code would loop without sleep until file generation.

@doomedraven

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@doomedraven

doomedraven May 12, 2017

Contributor

this added to upcoming linux analyzer pr :)

Contributor

doomedraven commented May 12, 2017

this added to upcoming linux analyzer pr :)

@doomedraven

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@doomedraven

doomedraven May 12, 2017

Contributor

your PR included here #1545 :)

Contributor

doomedraven commented May 12, 2017

your PR included here #1545 :)

@drmn

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@drmn

drmn Jun 1, 2017

Thank you—glad to see it :)

drmn commented Jun 1, 2017

Thank you—glad to see it :)

@drmn drmn closed this Jun 1, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment