[lkml]   [2006]   [Apr]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [stable] breaks java... sort of
    Ok, I think I need to apologize to everyone here.  I have found the
    problem, and it is not with your patch, Hugh. For some reason, the
    config for my source tree had a 1G/3G user/kernel split
    configured. This is very bizaar as I copy my .config from tree to
    tree to avoid any changes in the configuration of my test kernels.

    I imagine this is the expected behavior when you only have 1G
    configured for user space? right. I will be sure to include my
    /proc/config.gz in the future to prevent this from happening again.

    I've tested and and neither of them have the mmap constraint.

    again, my apologies. I thank you for your patience and your hardwork
    on the kernel.


    On 4/24/06, David Wilk <> wrote:
    > On 4/23/06, Hugh Dickins <> wrote:
    > > On Fri, 21 Apr 2006, David Wilk wrote:
    > > > I finally got strace into the tomcat startup scripts properly and
    > > > grabbed the attached output. I don't see any of the two lines you
    > > > propose. I hope you guys can find this useful.
    > >
    > > Thanks for getting that, David. As you observe, it doesn't involve
    > > shm at all, and the only mprotect is PROT_NONE. Do the abbreviated
    > > messages in the final lines of the trace fit with the errors you
    > > were originally reporting? (I think so.) Or is this particular
    > > trace failing for some other reason, earlier than before, and we
    > > need to try something else to identify the problem?
    > I think this trace was taken while java was doing exactly what it was
    > doing before. I actually restarted java many, many times with
    > and watched in amazement as it failed each and every time,
    > with the exact same error message. This is tomcat, specifically, and
    > it would die immediately after startup and it was started the exact
    > same way with the init script. So, yeah, I think this trace is
    > representative. I have no idea why it doesn't contain what you would
    > consider relevant. I'm no programmer, unfortunately. However, I
    > would like to help out any way that I can.
    > >
    > > > mmap2(NULL, 872415232, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE|PROT_EXEC, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS|MAP_NORESERVE, -1, 0) = -1 ENOMEM (Cannot allocate memory)
    > > > write(1, "Error occurred during initializa"..., 43) = 43
    > > > write(1, "Could not reserve enough space f"..., 46) = 46
    > > > write(1, "\n", 1) = 1
    > > > unlink("/tmp/hsperfdata_tomcat/12273") = 0
    > > > write(2, "Could not create the Java virtua"..., 43) = 43
    > >
    > > To judge by this trace, I'd have to say that your problem has
    > > nothing whatever to do with the shm/mprotect fix in,
    > > and we've no evidence yet to complicate that fix. Interestingly,
    > > nobody else has so far reported any problem with it.
    > bizaar. I must say that this patch 'fixing' the problem just cannot
    > be coincidental. Tomcat will never start without it, and never fails
    > with it.
    > >
    > > Judging by the mmap addresses throughout the trace (top down, from
    > > 0x37f2e000), it looks like you've got CONFIG_VMSPLIT_1G (not a good
    > > choice for a box with only 1G of RAM: whereas CONFIG_VMSPLIT_3G_OPT
    > > would maximize your userspace while avoiding the need for HIGHMEM);
    > > and with the above 832M mmap, the remaining hole in user address
    > > space is just too small to hold it.
    > well, this is just a test box for a system we deploy on a dual-cpu
    > server with 4GB of ram.
    > can you describe the CONFIG_VMSPLIT_3G_OPT and how I might find it in
    > 'make menuconfig'? is it the second option (3G/1G user/kernel)? I"ve
    > got the first option selected which is 3G/1G user/kernel as well, but
    > different somehow. As this is new to 2.6.16, I'm not familiar with
    > the options. Perhaps my 1GB workstations would benefit from this
    > second 3G/1G option?
    > >
    > > But that leaves me quite unable to explain why you should have
    > > thought the shm/mprotect patch responsible, and why you should
    > > find the more complicated version works. Stack randomization
    > > changes the numbers a little, but I think not enough to explain
    > > how it sometimes could fit 832M in there, sometimes not.
    > Unfortunately I cannot speculate as to the cause, but experimentally
    > (anecdotally anyway) the patch is 100% effective.
    > >
    > > Tell me I'm talking nonsense and we'll have another go:
    > > I guess adding some printks on top of the "replacement"
    > > patch, so it can tell us when it's having an effect.
    > I'd never accuse you of nonsense, but I cannot refute the evidence. ; )
    > if there is anything else you would like me todo to try to squeeze
    > more data from this thing, please let me know.
    > >
    > > Hugh
    > >
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-04-25 20:11    [W:0.026 / U:8.504 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site