On Thursday 17 February 2005 08:38 pm, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> > On Wednesday 16 February 2005 06:52 pm, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > So it's probably an ndiswrapper bug?
> >
> > Andrew,
> > It looks like it is a kernel bug triggered by NdisWrapper. Without
> > NdisWrapper, and with just 8139too pl
On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 05:00, Parag Warudkar wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 February 2005 06:52 pm, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > So it's probably an ndiswrapper bug?
> Andrew,
> It looks like it is a kernel bug triggered by NdisWrapper. Without
> NdisWrapper, and with just 8139too plus some light network ac
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Parag Warudkar wrote:
>
> A question - is it safe to assume it is a kmalloc based leak? (I am thinking
> of tracking it down by using kprobes to insert a probe into __kmalloc and
> record the stack to see what is causing so many allocations.)
It's definitely kmalloc-base
On Wednesday 16 February 2005 10:48 pm, Horst von Brand wrote:
> Does x86_64 use up a (freeable) register for the frame pointer or not?
> I.e., does -fomit-frame-pointer have any effect on the generated code?
{Took Linus out of the loop as he probably isn't interested}
The generated code is diffe
On Wednesday 16 February 2005 06:52 pm, Andrew Morton wrote:
> So it's probably an ndiswrapper bug?
Andrew,
It looks like it is a kernel bug triggered by NdisWrapper. Without
NdisWrapper, and with just 8139too plus some light network activity the
size-64 grew from ~ 1100 to 4500 overnight. Is th
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Parag Warudkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > Is there a reason X86_64 doesnt have CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER anywhere in
> > the .config?
> No good reason, I suspect.
Does x86_64 use up a (freeable) register for the frame pointer or not?
I.e., does -f
On Wednesday 16 February 2005 06:51 pm, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 81002fe8 is the address of the slab object. 08a8 is
> supposed to be the caller's text address. It appears that
> __builtin_return_address(0) is returning junk. Perhaps due to
> -fomit-frame-pointer.
I tried manua
Parag Warudkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 16 February 2005 12:12 am, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Plenty of moisture there.
> >
> > Could you please use this patch? Make sure that you enable
> > CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER (might not be needed for __builtin_return_address(0),
> > but let's b
Parag Warudkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 16 February 2005 12:12 am, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > echo "size-4096 0 0 0" > /proc/slabinfo
>
> Is there a reason X86_64 doesnt have CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER anywhere in
> the .config?
No good reason, I suspect.
> I tried -rc4 with Manfred'
On Wednesday 16 February 2005 12:12 am, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Plenty of moisture there.
>
> Could you please use this patch? Make sure that you enable
> CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER (might not be needed for __builtin_return_address(0),
> but let's be sure). Also enable CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB.
Will try that
Parag Warudkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I am running -rc3 on my AMD64 laptop and I noticed it becomes sluggish after
> use mainly due to growing swap use. It has 768M of RAM and a Gig of swap.
> After following this thread, I started monitoring /proc/slabinfo. It seems
> size-64 is contin
I am running -rc3 on my AMD64 laptop and I noticed it becomes sluggish after
use mainly due to growing swap use. It has 768M of RAM and a Gig of swap.
After following this thread, I started monitoring /proc/slabinfo. It seems
size-64 is continuously growing and doing a compile run seem to make
12 matches
Mail list logo
