David Ford wrote:
> safemode wrote:
>
> > It seems to me that test8-vm3 handles this fine. in test9 upon loading X i was
> > already using swap and down to 10MB ... here i have netscape loaded and some other
> > stuff along with gaim and i've got 36MB free still. I'm not so sure you can chalk
> > this up totally to X .... test9 is a VERY VERY poor kernel compared to test8-vm3
>
> I fully agree. There is much too high of a problem factor with the test9 series for
>me
> to use them on my workstations and I don't have time to debug them due to priorities.
>
> I recommend you do a fresh checkout (not update) of X (current version is 4.01d),
>and use
> test8 and we'll go from that point. Verify that test8 is clean, apply Rik's VM
>patch,
> test again, then step to test9.
>
> There are three issues:
>
> 1) 100% use of SHM segments appears to cause instability
> 2) SHM segments count keeps increasing using X 4.01c possibly due to corrupted cvs
>tree,
> fresh checkout fixed it for one person
> 3) test-9...don't even go there ;)
>
> -d
>
> --
> "There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are
> virtue and talents", Thomas Jefferson [1742-1826], 3rd US President
Indeed It will take approximately 2 hours for me to have the new X installed and
reboot to
use it and get any results. However, test8-vm3 would be AWESOME if it didn't have that
deadlock that makes it crash after a while. it seems to be devoid of any of the
annoying
problems test9 has. One thing that seems to be overlooked too and i'm not sure if
it's
related or not is my DMA's timeout on test9 .... this does not occur on test8-vm3.
Well,
i'll get back about the latest xfree86 in about 2 hours .. but if anyone has any other
ideas
or info i can give ...it's not problem. test8 seems stable enough to keep itself up
until
i'm ready to reboot.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
