lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Problem with 2.4.0-test9-pre6 seems to be SHM
Date
From
> 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:0.049 / U:0.316 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site