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

From: Daniel Stone (daniel@dustpuppy.ods.org)
Date: Sun Sep 24 2000 - 19:59:31 EDT

  • Next message: Peter Samuelson: "how interesting are data->bss patches?"

    > 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.

    The problem is most definitely NOT X as I experienced the exact same
    problems and reported it to l-k yesterday; and my box has no trace of X on
    it. gcc and grep take it down though.

    d

    --
    Daniel Stone
    Kernel Hacker (or at least has aspirations to be)
    daniel@dustpuppy.ods.org
    http://dustpuppy.ods.org
    -
    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 - 22:02:24 EDT