Re: smem report from the nexus-raring
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 09:06:41PM +0100, Sebastien Bacher wrote: We recently did a smem memory snapshot from raring, running on a nexus tablet. The results have been recorded on the wiki: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Nexus7/Smem-2013-01-16 I've been spending some time trying to track down memory leaks this week. Here are a few notes. valgrind was of course the first thing I reached for. I had to fix a few things (you used to need valgrind-dbg to get useful stack traces on ARM, and a fairly common instruction wasn't implemented), so make sure you have the most current valgrind in raring. It's not perfect for desktop stuff, because it's unaware of GObject references, and because GTK+ allocates quite a few singleton structures which remain unfreed on exit; I hear refdbg can help, but I haven't tried that yet. However, if you decide you don't care about reference cycles or unfreed singletons (which I think is not necessarily a bad approach, at least to start with), the --show-possibly-lost=no option can help cut the output down to something more reasonable. I ran across https://fedorahosted.org/gdb-heap/, which is handy for figuring out something of what's going on with running processes; I'm working on packaging this, but in the meantime you can grab it from git (I think I'd recommend that over the last release, as it's gained some awareness of GTypes). You can check it out in your home directory and then do: $ sudo PYTHONPATH=/home/ubuntu/gdb-heap gdb /path/to/executable PID (gdb) python import gdbheap (gdb) heap ... then for example ... (gdb) heap select kind=string data Poking around here can give you a sense of where memory is going. I used a combination of this and valgrind to track down leaks in upower (and sorry for the regression yesterday, caused by me unwisely applying a small patch by hand); you can see the difference here: http://people.canonical.com/~j-lallement/N7/memusage/idle/upowerd.png Caches are important, and they often rely on filesystem timestamps, especially the ones that can only be built as root. Unfortunately, the Nexus 7 installer was failing to preserve timestamps, possibly due to a false-economy attempt to make the installer run more quickly. As a result, for example, anything that loaded a GTK+ icon theme was allocating several hundred KB of memory more than it needed to. We've fixed this now in the installer; if you don't want to reflash, then at least run 'sudo update-icon-caches /usr/share/icons/*'. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@ubuntu.com] -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Screen orientation and backlight sensing for the Nexus 7
On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:22:46 +, Jani Monoses wrote: On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:00:00 +0100, Oliver Grawert wrote: hi, i just uploaded http://paste.ubuntu.com/1555763/ which should do for now, it would be great if someone could re-implement /usr/bin/acceld in actual C .. polling like that from a shell script adds some CPU overhead that we could avoid ... I am looking into what it takes to add this functionality to gnome- settings-daemon that already has support for screen orientation and a certain type of accelerometer. If that does not work out without being too intrusive we should look into making this into C as you suggest. This is the current status. I'll probably upload the g-s-d equivalent of the shell script today. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-nexus7/+bug/1110360/comments/2 Jani -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Automated Testing Hackfest - Friday 1st February
Hello everybody, hot on the heels of Ubuntu Developer Week we are going to have an Automated Testing Hackfest. The idea is for us to meet in #ubuntu-quality and - learn - hack on automated tests - add new tests - fix old tests - have lots of fun Find all of the details here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/AutomatedTesting/Hackfest If you are a seasoned Ubuntu developer and want to help out we need your help. It would be great if you could help review tests and answer questions. The more tests we have later on the better. Basically what we need from you is: - hang out in #ubuntu-quality - follow the instructions on http://developer.ubuntu.com/packaging/html/auto-pkg-test.html#executing-the-test Thanks a bunch in advance! Have a great day, Daniel -- Ubuntu Developer Week - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDeveloperWeek 29th-31st Jan 2013 - Your great chance to finally get involved! -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Proposal to change page allocation to zero on free in the -virtual kernel
Hi, I would like to know if it would be a good idea to change the page allocator zeroing policy from zero on allocate (for GFP_USER) to zero on free for the -virtual kernel builds. This has been initally proposed in grsecurity for security reasons, but it is extremely beneficial in virtual environments for 2 additional reasons: a) live migration b) ksm What is your opinion on this? Thanks, Peter -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
KVM guest Buffer I/O errors
Hi, I have an issue which is very similar to some others that I found unsolved, such as: - https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/577785 - http://centos.distrosfaqs.org/centos-virt/guests-pausing-suddenly/ - http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-1450439.html I have 8 guests installed on an internal RAID and all of them work as they should, except one (that is the largest of them and sadly, the most important one). There are no drive problems reported in none of the other host's logs. The most importantly, there is nothing in the host system logs at all, but although it is so, we have replaced both drives by new ones just out of the box. But the issue remains so I am pretty sure it's now hardware-related, but have no more ideas what to do next. I could just create a new guest and transfer the services and data, but since this happened without me changing anything (at least intentionally), I want to find out a reason why did it actually happen and how to prevent it. Any help or ideas on this matter are very welcome. Thanks, Matej -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Ubuntu Package Management
Hi Just a question, how does the development of the Ubuntu package management software work? Reason I ask is its causing serious lagging on many computers, including but not just mine, I see someone on the forum besides me complaining about Ubuntu been slow on a set up where there shouldn't normally be lag and I am laying odds the package management software issue. Generally computers it lags on it shouldn't be lagging on, and its a problem that really needs fixing. I would be willing to partake though it developing something more resource efficient. If something more resource efficient is not developed, I have to say its really going to harm Ubuntu, really harm Ubuntu! Jamie -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Ubuntu Package Management
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:47:01PM +, Jamie White wrote: Just a question, how does the development of the Ubuntu package management software work? Reason I ask is its causing serious lagging on many computers, including but not just mine, I see someone on the forum besides me complaining about Ubuntu been slow on a set up where there shouldn't normally be lag and I am laying odds the package management software issue. Generally computers it lags on it shouldn't be lagging on, and its a problem that really needs fixing. I would be willing to partake though it developing something more resource efficient. If something more resource efficient is not developed, I have to say its really going to harm Ubuntu, really harm Ubuntu! On btrfs, by any chance? Kind regards Philipp Kern signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Ubuntu Package Management
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Jamie White jam...@jatos.co.uk wrote: Hi Just a question, how does the development of the Ubuntu package management software work? Reason I ask is its causing serious lagging on many computers, including but not just mine, I see someone on the forum besides me complaining about Ubuntu been slow on a set up where there shouldn't normally be lag and I am laying odds the package management software issue. Generally computers it lags on it shouldn't be lagging on, and its a problem that really needs fixing. I would be willing to partake though it developing something more resource efficient. I'm a little unclear as to what the problem is: what do you mean by lagging? Is it slow to download? Maybe the servers are a little busy. You can choose another server. http://askubuntu.com/questions/37753/how-can-i-get-apt-to-use-a-mirror-close-to-me-or-choose-a-faster-mirror Package management is handled by apt which is extremely resource efficient, designed and efficiently runs on everything from ARM, AVR32, MIPS up to mainframes. Development occurs on the APT Development Team de...@lists.debian.org mailing list, but it seems that it may just be that you need to choose a different server. ~Scott -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
tablets request
I've been playing around with a borrowed nexus 7 for a few days and got kubuntu running on it. It's kindae working except QML doesn't seem to respond to anything (traditional widgets work fine) which is quite a limitation. Anyway I'd like to request to the kubuntu council permission to buy a nexus 7 and an archos G9 101 tablet to keep looking into this and get kubuntu images made. The cost on amazon.co.uk is £373.52 Jonathan -- kubuntu-devel mailing list kubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-devel
Re: KVM guest Buffer I/O errors
Quoting Matej (ma...@matnet.net): Hi, I have an issue which is very similar to some others that I found unsolved, such as: - https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/577785 - http://centos.distrosfaqs.org/centos-virt/guests-pausing-suddenly/ - http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-1450439.html I have 8 guests installed on an internal RAID and all of them work as they should, except one (that is the largest of them and sadly, the most important one). There are no drive problems reported in none of the other host's logs. The most importantly, there is nothing in the host system logs at all, but although it is so, we have replaced both drives by new ones just out of the box. But the issue remains so I am pretty sure it's now hardware-related, but have no more ideas what to do next. I could just create a new guest and transfer the services and data, but since this happened without me changing anything (at least intentionally), I want to find out a reason why did it actually happen and how to prevent it. Any help or ideas on this matter are very welcome. Thanks, Matej Best would be to file a bug against linux plus qemu-kvm so we can collect more information. Are you using soft or hard raid? Which release are you on? Is it possible to test with raid out of the picture? -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Call for votes: Developer Membership Board restaffing
Hello, On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 09:36:19AM -0600, Micah Gersten wrote: The Developer Membership Board has started a vote to restaff for the four members whose terms are expiring. The Developer Membership Board is responsible for reviewing and approving new Ubuntu developers. It evaluates prospective Ubuntu developers and decides when to entrust them with developer privileges. There are seven candidates: Benjamin Drung (bdrung) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BenjaminDrung Bhavani Shankar (coolbhavi) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BhavaniShankar Cody Somerville (cody-somerville) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CodySomerville Dmitrijs Ledkovs (xnox) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DmitrijsLedkovs/DMBApplication Iain Lane (Laney) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IainLane/DMB2013 Scott Kitterman (ScottK) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ScottKitterman Stéphane Graber (stgraber) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/stgraber At the January DMB meeting, there were two applicants, both of whom were rejected. It doesn't say that on paper; on paper it says that Adam Stokes's application was changed to contributing member during the meeting and was approved. But the long and the short of it is that two people with a substantial history of contributing to Ubuntu in their respective domains applied for upload rights in January, were recommended by existing Ubuntu developers, and were denied upload rights by the DMB. I understand that the DMB won't always agree with their fellow Ubuntu Developers about whether a particular applicant is ready for a particular uploader status. But I do think it's important that when the DMB disagrees with the developers who are recommending someone for uploader status, there be transparency about the reasons for this disagreement. Currently, the wiki says: It can be difficult to know when you are ready to apply for uploader team membership. (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/ApplicationProcess) That's certainly true, but I think this is something that the DMB has a duty to correct. Frankly, I think there's no reason that Adam and Björn couldn't have been ready for upload rights by January, *if* the DMB's expectations were made clearer. If there were documented standards that at least tried to be objective, people who are aiming to get upload rights can be working to those standards in advance, instead of being told in the DMB meeting that the work they've been doing doesn't tick the right boxes on the DMB's invisible checklist. So my question to each of the candidates is this. As a member of the DMB, what would you do to remove this uncertainty around when people are ready to apply, reducing the number of rejections (whether those are hard rejects, or soft redirects) at DMB meetings? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Call for votes: Developer Membership Board restaffing
On 31/01/13 00:22, Steve Langasek wrote: Hello, On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 09:36:19AM -0600, Micah Gersten wrote: The Developer Membership Board has started a vote to restaff for the four members whose terms are expiring. The Developer Membership Board is responsible for reviewing and approving new Ubuntu developers. It evaluates prospective Ubuntu developers and decides when to entrust them with developer privileges. There are seven candidates: Benjamin Drung (bdrung) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BenjaminDrung Bhavani Shankar (coolbhavi) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BhavaniShankar Cody Somerville (cody-somerville) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CodySomerville Dmitrijs Ledkovs (xnox) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DmitrijsLedkovs/DMBApplication Iain Lane (Laney) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IainLane/DMB2013 Scott Kitterman (ScottK) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ScottKitterman Stéphane Graber (stgraber) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/stgraber So my question to each of the candidates is this. As a member of the DMB, what would you do to remove this uncertainty around when people are ready to apply, reducing the number of rejections (whether those are hard rejects, or soft redirects) at DMB meetings? A prospective developer is ready to apply when one gets an endorsement from a core-dev for a particular developer membership level. This is not dis-similar to Debian New Member process where a DD advocates one's application. I'd like to use devel-permissions mailing list to discuss applications with applicants, DMB and subscribers to devel-permissions mailing list. This should reduce the number of rejections and/or downgrades, hopefully not make meetings over-run, as well as allow to further scrutinize applications. In his application, Iain mentions that DMB should sumamrise the reasons any candidates are not accepted on a public mailing list [1]. I'd rather also raise concerns on the public mailing list with the applicant, before the meeting and before the decision has already been made. [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IainLane/DMB2013 -- Regards, Dmitrijs. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Call for votes: Developer Membership Board restaffing
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 04:22:58 PM Steve Langasek wrote: Hello, On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 09:36:19AM -0600, Micah Gersten wrote: The Developer Membership Board has started a vote to restaff for the four members whose terms are expiring. The Developer Membership Board is responsible for reviewing and approving new Ubuntu developers. It evaluates prospective Ubuntu developers and decides when to entrust them with developer privileges. There are seven candidates: Benjamin Drung (bdrung) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BenjaminDrung Bhavani Shankar (coolbhavi) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BhavaniShankar Cody Somerville (cody-somerville) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CodySomerville Dmitrijs Ledkovs (xnox) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DmitrijsLedkovs/DMBApplication Iain Lane (Laney) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IainLane/DMB2013 Scott Kitterman (ScottK) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ScottKitterman Stéphane Graber (stgraber) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/stgraber At the January DMB meeting, there were two applicants, both of whom were rejected. It doesn't say that on paper; on paper it says that Adam Stokes's application was changed to contributing member during the meeting and was approved. But the long and the short of it is that two people with a substantial history of contributing to Ubuntu in their respective domains applied for upload rights in January, were recommended by existing Ubuntu developers, and were denied upload rights by the DMB. I'm not a sitting member of the DMB and have not looked into these specific cases, so my thoughts should be taken on a general basis and not at all related to these individuals or their applications. I object a bit to your formulation of the situation though. I think denied upload rights is backwards. Not granted upload rights would be much better. I've got a fair amount of experience with making the decision about if someone should be given upload rights or not. I do that currently as a member of kubuntu-dev and also did so for MOTU applications when I was a member of one of the DMB predecessor organizations, the MOTU Council. Regardless of if it's the DMB or other delegated body, the decision about upload rights is on behalf of the Ubuntu project and it needs to be taken with the project's needs in mind. I don't think there is any inherent right to upload to the archive. Generally it is in the project's interest to grant upload rights where technically and socially appropriate, so there is rarely any conflict between the needs of the project and the desires of the applicant, but I do think it's important to remember on whose behalf we act. I understand that the DMB won't always agree with their fellow Ubuntu Developers about whether a particular applicant is ready for a particular uploader status. But I do think it's important that when the DMB disagrees with the developers who are recommending someone for uploader status, there be transparency about the reasons for this disagreement. Currently, the wiki says: It can be difficult to know when you are ready to apply for uploader team membership. (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/ApplicationProcess) That's certainly true, but I think this is something that the DMB has a duty to correct. Frankly, I think there's no reason that Adam and Björn couldn't have been ready for upload rights by January, *if* the DMB's expectations were made clearer. If there were documented standards that at least tried to be objective, people who are aiming to get upload rights can be working to those standards in advance, instead of being told in the DMB meeting that the work they've been doing doesn't tick the right boxes on the DMB's invisible checklist. So my question to each of the candidates is this. As a member of the DMB, what would you do to remove this uncertainty around when people are ready to apply, reducing the number of rejections (whether those are hard rejects, or soft redirects) at DMB meetings? I usually know how I'm likely to vote before such a meeting starts. From my perspective, the meeting should be largely confirmatory and questioning should be to establish what further training someone might need in the short term. In cases where I've been one of the people deciding if someone should be granted upload rights and I think the person is not ready, I like to seek them out and discuss it with them. That way they can consider if they should apply or not or I might learn something new and help them improve their application. I do not think that it is possible to reduce the decision about if someone is ready for upload rights to quantifiable standards that give complete certainty about if one is ready or not. I have recommended people for MOTU/core-dev based on varying standards appropriate to the individual. Some people I trust to be well technically versed enough to tackle most Ubuntu
Re: Proposal to change page allocation to zero on free in the -virtual kernel
On 28.01.2013 09:45, Peter Lieven wrote: Hi, I would like to know if it would be a good idea to change the page allocator zeroing policy from zero on allocate (for GFP_USER) to zero on free for the -virtual kernel builds. This has been initally proposed in grsecurity for security reasons, but it is extremely beneficial in virtual environments for 2 additional reasons: a) live migration b) ksm What is your opinion on this? Thanks, Peter Since Quantal (12.10) there is no separate virtual kernel flavour anymore. So any proposed change affects more than just virtual (in fact server and desktop kernels). So no there (if that is not an upstream default in future). -Stefan signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Call for votes: Developer Membership Board restaffing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The Developer Membership Board has started a vote to restaff for the four members whose terms are expiring. The Developer Membership Board is responsible for reviewing and approving new Ubuntu developers. It evaluates prospective Ubuntu developers and decides when to entrust them with developer privileges. There are seven candidates: Benjamin Drung (bdrung) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BenjaminDrung Bhavani Shankar (coolbhavi) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BhavaniShankar Cody Somerville (cody-somerville) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CodySomerville Dmitrijs Ledkovs (xnox) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DmitrijsLedkovs/DMBApplication Iain Lane (Laney) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IainLane/DMB2013 Scott Kitterman (ScottK) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ScottKitterman Stéphane Graber (stgraber) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/stgraber The vote closes on 2013-02-11 at approximately 12:00 UTC. Ballots were mailed to all members of ~ubuntu-dev who have a public e-mail address stored in LP or linked GPG keys. If you are a member of ~ubuntu-dev and didn't receive a ballot, please contact me privately. Please note: a 'None of the below' option was added to the ballot this time. If you don't feel a certain candidate should be on the Developer Membership Board, you should rank 'None of the below' higher than that candidate. Regards, Micah Gersten On behalf of the DMB -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlEJPZoACgkQTniv4aqX/VmENwCdGpQwRaktUi5sjNOX2iu5Ga5a cDMAn2elGHo9WN6BQDI9nY1WQWWT1Sve =Qkgf -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- ubuntu-devel-announce mailing list ubuntu-devel-announce@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-announce
