Re: Problem with 2.4.0-test9-pre6 seems to be SHM

From: safemode (safemode@voicenet.com)
Date: Sat Sep 23 2000 - 19:02:49 EDT

  • Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: cdrecord and 'invalid field in parameter list' error"

    safemode wrote:

    > Mark Hahn wrote:
    >
    >> this has nothing to do with the linux kernel.
    >> X itself does not use shm for anything. apps may use
    >> an X extension (XSHM) which uses shm segments to exchange
    >> image data without copying through a socket, but that's
    >> an extension, not inherent to X.
    >>
    >> > Ok, compiling using a cvs of X i got a couple hours ago, I'm just
    >>
    >> > wondering what the average segment number is for SHM on an X
    >> session
    >> > that has been up for a while .... i'll get back with any sort of
    >> info
    >> > on if the SHM problem has been solved with this latest CVS or if
    >> it
    >> > continues to look like a kernel SHM problem. So far though,
    >> > 2.4.0-test8-vm3 is handling the problem Quite well as opposed to
    >> test9,
    >> > which died in 2 hours upon booting ...and it didn't have the added
    >>
    >> > stress of compiling X.
    >> >
    >> > -
    >>
    >
    >
    > I think it has a lot to do with the kernel, and with X. Since i
    > havn't upgraded anything but X (and thus the extensions) ... now it's
    > obvious that X is at fault for providing us with a wonderful shared
    > memory leak. But, the kernel too, has something to do with it since
    > test9 seems to be fairly unstable with it, causing all sorts of weird
    > happenings before totally freezing up like test8-vm3 does. This
    > problems only manifests in VERY recent X cvs copies so most people
    > will not see this problem. The problem i'm wondering about is if the
    > Kernel is handling shared memory correctly or if this is entirely X's
    > fault.
    >

    Somehow i cant help but think this is somehow linked to an OOM problem
    that has yet to be fixed with the 2.4.0-testX series. It seems
    suspiciously like the kernel is killing init when X decides it would be
    peachy to gobble up all the ram. i dont know of any way to prove
    this though.

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 19:04:43 EDT