Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 1 Jun 1996 13:41:19 +0200 (MET DST) | From | Bernhard Heidegger <> | Subject | 3 errors/suggestions (pre-2.0.x) |
| |
Hi!
1.) I got many (over 5000 in 3 days) of the following messages with 1.99.10 (also with 1.3.97); the messages are sorted and uniq kernel: swap_duplicate: trying to duplicate unused page kernel: swap_free: swap-space map bad (entry 00033200) kernel: swap_free: swap-space map bad (entry 00034200) kernel: swap_free: swap-space map bad (entry 00052a00) kernel: swap_free: swap-space map bad (entry 00057500) kernel: swap_free: swap-space map bad (entry 00057600) kernel: swap_free: swap-space map bad (entry 00063600) kernel: swap_free: swap-space map bad (entry 0007fa00) kernel: swap_free: swap-space map bad (entry 00080900) kernel: swap_free: swap-space map bad (entry 00086700) kernel: swap_free: swap-space map bad (entry 0008f700) kernel: swap_free: swap-space map bad (entry 0009bf00) kernel: swap_free: swap-space map bad (entry 0009c200) kernel: swap_free: swap-space map bad (entry 000a5100) kernel: swap_free: swap-space map bad (entry 000a5900) kernel: swap_free: swap-space map bad (entry 000a5a00) kernel: swap_free: swap-space map bad (entry 000a5c00) kernel: swap_free: swap-space map bad (entry 0015e800) kernel: swap_free: swap-space map bad (entry 00396200) kernel: swap_free: swap-space map bad (entry 00529200) kernel: swap_free: swap-space map bad (entry 00675b00)
The machine is a type of WWW server (with database); sometimes there are up to anout 600 processes and a cat /proc/sys/kernel/*-nr gives 2432 5840 4962 (Yes, I changed NR_INODE to 8192, NR_FILE to 4096 and NR_TASKS to 2048) The problem is, that I cannot reproduce the swap errors; I wrote a little C program, which obtain much memory (200 MB), write to that memory, read and free it -> no swap errors :-( It seems, that one of the server processes didn't work when the swapping errors begin (this processes does fork()'s for each request; the fork seems to work, but then the child get a segv)
2.) Is it possible to raise the fd limit per process before 2.0? IMHO 256 fd's per process is too less today.
3.) sys_socket calls get_fd; IMHO, if that fail (because of ENFILE or EMFILE) the return value should be E[NM]FILE not EINVAL.
Thanks in advance, Bernhard.
--- +----------------------------+-------------------------------+ | hdg@edvz.tu-graz.ac.at | bheide@iicm.tu-graz.ac.at | +----------------------------+-------------------------------+ | Bernhard Heidegger, Graz University of Technology, Austria | +------------------------------------------------------------+ Worst day playing is better than best day working!
|  |