lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 2.4.0-test9-pre6 shmem problems revisited
      As a datapoint, I've had 2.4.0-test9pre6 up over 1.5 days doing
    some serious compiling for a piece of that (probably a good 6-8 hours,
    but I haven't timed it with my new AMD processor lately).

    I'm running X 4.0.1. I don't know where the `c' and `d' bits you
    guys are talking about is coming from. This is the source and patches
    I grabbed off of XFree86's website.

    I haven't seen any fatal lockups. In the past I've apparently been
    lucky since I'm running a 2.4.0.x kernel with 256MB of RAM and SMP on
    a non-SMP machine, but there is a reason I do that. (:

    I was running 2.4.0-test9pre2 (no X at all) for 4 DAYS before that
    with no known problems.

    Unfortunately, I'm running syslogd-ng-1.4.5 with seems to stop syslogging
    output after some period of time, so I can't tell if I'm catching all
    the warning messages that I might, even if they're not deadlocking me.


    On Sun, Sep 24, 2000 at 01:21:40AM -0400, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
    > I think there's problem in both the kernel and in X. Why?
    >
    > Work machine:
    > * test9-pre2 w/ X 4.0d ... uptime 5 days nothing reporting
    > shm errors like my other boxes. This machine gets hit pretty
    > hard when I'm on it.
    >
    > Co-worker's machine:
    > * 2.2.16 w/ X 4.0.1c ... getting reports of shm errors but no
    > lockups. This guy tortures his machine.
    >
    > Home machine:
    > * test7 w/ X 4.0.1c ... getting reports of shm errors but no
    > lockups
    >
    > * test9-pre* w/ X 4.0.1c ... can't stay up for more than a
    > couple hours before locking up.
    >
    > To do:
    > * Try test 8
    > * Try X from about a week or two ago (or futher back if needed)
    >
    >
    > Not very scientific I know. But so far the thing I see in common is that
    > using kernels before test9-pre* with or without X 4.0.1c and your
    > machine wont lock up in a relatively short period of time. use
    > test9-pre* w/ X 4.0.1c and you're not gonna be up for more than a couple
    > hours. i may be lumping all the test9-pre versions in here when I
    > shouldnt be.
    >
    >
    > Like someone stated earlier, I think this is like the truncate bug.
    > Something has been changed that just brought this bug out to the front.
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:45    [W:0.025 / U:31.416 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site