Give that man a cigarit was an env var (not LOCALE but LANG). I'd
actually checked this but I didn't think that made a difference in my case.
Thanks Linus, now can you fix the larger signal 11 problem?
--Rainer
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Linus Torvalds
I'd guess
From: CMA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Did you already try to selectively disable L1 and L2 caches (if
your box has both) and see what happens?
Anyone know how to do this?
If you own a p6 class machine (sorry but I didn't find your hw specs in
previous messages)
you should be able to enter
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Rainer Mager wrote:
Mike et al,
I have no idea what IKD is and I don't know what to do with any results I
might find BUT I'd be happy to do this if it will help. Please pass on the
info with the instructions. Who should I report the results to?
IKD is a
(or gnome-terminal or whatever) then it starts up fine.
If, however, I try to launch it from my gnome taskbar's menu then it dies
with signal 11 (the Java log is available upon request). This seems to be
100% consistent, since I noticed it yesterday, even across reboots.
Interestingly
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Lookin gat "swapoff()", it could easily be something like
- swapoff walks theough the processes, marking the pages dirty
(correctly)
- swapoff goes on to the next swap entry, and because it needs memory for
this, the VM layer will swap
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Lookin gat "swapoff()", it could easily be something like
- swapoff walks theough the processes, marking the pages dirty
(correctly)
- swapoff goes on to the next swap entry, and because it
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Not in my test tree. Same fault, and same trace leading up to it. no
Ok.
It definitely looks like a swapoff() problem.
Have you ever seen the behaviour without running swapoff?
Also, can you re-create it without running swapon() (if it's
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Hint: "ptep_mkdirty()".
In case you wonder why the bug was so insidious, what this caused was two
separate problems, both of them able to cause SIGSGV's.
One: we didn't mark the page table entry dirty like we were supposed to.
Two: by making it
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 11:35:57AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Ehh, I think I found it.
Hint: "ptep_mkdirty()".
Oops.
I'll bet you $5 USD (and these days, that's about a gadzillion Euros) that
this explains it.
Linus
Good. Sounds like you guys have a handle on
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Ehh, I think I found it.
Hint: "ptep_mkdirty()".
Oops.
I'll bet you $5 USD (and these days, that's about a gadzillion Euros) that
Poor European Gérard as slim as 1.84 meter - 78 Kg these days.
What about old days poor European Linus
a signal 11
again and will never, ever crash ;-)
Finally, as soon as there is a patch, can other people who have seen this
problem test it. My problem is so random that I'd need at least a few days
to gain some confidence this is fixed.
Thanks all.
--Rainer
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Not in my test tree. Same fault, and same trace leading up to it. no
Ok.
It definitely looks like a swapoff() problem.
Have you ever seen the behaviour without running swapoff?
No.
Also, can
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Hint: "ptep_mkdirty()".
g rather obvious oopsie.. once spotted.
In case you wonder why the bug was so insidious, what this caused was two
separate problems, both of them able to cause SIGSGV's.
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Rainer Mager wrote:
> Thanks for the info...
>
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jeff V. Merkey
> > > So, is this related to the larger signal 11 problems?
> >
> > There's a corruption bug in the page cache somewhere, and it'
ver) then it starts up fine.
>> If, however, I try to launch it from my gnome taskbar's menu then it dies
>> with signal 11 (the Java log is available upon request). This seems to be
>> 100% consistent, since I noticed it yesterday, even across reboots.
>> Interestingly, the sa
Thanks for the info...
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jeff V. Merkey
> > So, is this related to the larger signal 11 problems?
>
> There's a corruption bug in the page cache somewhere, and it's 100%
> reproducable. Finding it will be tough
Ok, granted
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 09:22:55AM +0900, Rainer Mager wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> Ok, I just upgraded to 2.4.0test12 (although I don't think there was any
> work in 12 that directly addresses this signal 11 problem). When compiling
> the new kernel I chose to disable
Hi again,
Ok, I just upgraded to 2.4.0test12 (although I don't think there was any
work in 12 that directly addresses this signal 11 problem). When compiling
the new kernel I chose to disable AGPGart and RDM as suggested by
[EMAIL PROTECTED] I will report later if this makes any
Hi again,
Ok, I just upgraded to 2.4.0test12 (although I don't think there was any
work in 12 that directly addresses this signal 11 problem). When compiling
the new kernel I chose to disable AGPGart and RDM as suggested by
[EMAIL PROTECTED] I will report later if this makes any
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 09:22:55AM +0900, Rainer Mager wrote:
Hi again,
Ok, I just upgraded to 2.4.0test12 (although I don't think there was any
work in 12 that directly addresses this signal 11 problem). When compiling
the new kernel I chose to disable AGPGart and RDM as suggested
Thanks for the info...
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jeff V. Merkey
So, is this related to the larger signal 11 problems?
There's a corruption bug in the page cache somewhere, and it's 100%
reproducable. Finding it will be tough
Ok, granted this will be tough
.
If, however, I try to launch it from my gnome taskbar's menu then it dies
with signal 11 (the Java log is available upon request). This seems to be
100% consistent, since I noticed it yesterday, even across reboots.
Interestingly, the same behavior occurs if I try to run the program from
withis JBuilder 4
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Rainer Mager wrote:
Thanks for the info...
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jeff V. Merkey
So, is this related to the larger signal 11 problems?
There's a corruption bug in the page cache somewhere, and it's 100%
reproducable. Finding it will be tough
repeat that my signal 11 problem has (so far)
only caused X to die. The OS remains up and stable.
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> My troublesome box finally seems to be stable.[...]I disabled DRM
> & AGPGart. With them both disabled, I get no problems at all.
&g
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Rainer Mager wrote:
> Well, I just had a Signal 11 even with the patch. What can I do to help
> figure this out?
My troublesome box finally seems to be stable. It's been up for the
last two days whilst under quite heavy loads without problems.
Previously, it would be
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Rainer Mager wrote:
> Well, I just had a Signal 11 even with the patch. What can I do to help
> figure this out?
Is init permanently running after you see a couple of these?
-Mike
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe l
Well, I just had a Signal 11 even with the patch. What can I do to help
figure this out?
Thanks,
--Rainer
-Original Message-
From: Alan Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 11:07 PM
To: David Woodhouse
Cc: Andi Kleen; Rainer Mager; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mark
Well, I just had a Signal 11 even with the patch. What can I do to help
figure this out?
Thanks,
--Rainer
-Original Message-
From: Alan Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 11:07 PM
To: David Woodhouse
Cc: Andi Kleen; Rainer Mager; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mark
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Rainer Mager wrote:
Well, I just had a Signal 11 even with the patch. What can I do to help
figure this out?
Is init permanently running after you see a couple of these?
-Mike
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" i
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Rainer Mager wrote:
Well, I just had a Signal 11 even with the patch. What can I do to help
figure this out?
My troublesome box finally seems to be stable. It's been up for the
last two days whilst under quite heavy loads without problems.
Previously, it would be lucky
that my signal 11 problem has (so far)
only caused X to die. The OS remains up and stable.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
My troublesome box finally seems to be stable.[...]I disabled DRM
AGPGart. With them both disabled, I get no problems at all.
No Sig11's, No Sig4's
To: David Woodhouse
Cc: Andi Kleen; Rainer Mager; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mark Vojkovich
Subject: Re: Signal 11
> > wrong with it. I've only seen this under 2.3.x/2.4 SMP kernels. I
> > would say that this is definitely a kernel problem.=20
>
> XFree86 3.9 and XFree86 4 were rock solid
To: David Woodhouse
Cc: Andi Kleen; Rainer Mager; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mark Vojkovich
Subject: Re: Signal 11
wrong with it. I've only seen this under 2.3.x/2.4 SMP kernels. I
would say that this is definitely a kernel problem.=20
XFree86 3.9 and XFree86 4 were rock solid for a _long_ time on 2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sat, 9 Dec 2000, Matthew Vanecek wrote:
>
> > > Have any of the folks seeing it checked if Ben LaHaise's fixes for the page
> > > table updating race help ?
> > > Alan
> >
> > Where are his fixes at? I don't seem to see any of his posts in the
> > archives.
>
>
On Sat, 9 Dec 2000, Matthew Vanecek wrote:
> > Have any of the folks seeing it checked if Ben LaHaise's fixes for the page
> > table updating race help ?
> > Alan
>
> Where are his fixes at? I don't seem to see any of his posts in the
> archives.
dwmw2 posted one such patch earlier this week
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > wrong with it. I've only seen this under 2.3.x/2.4 SMP kernels. I
> > > would say that this is definitely a kernel problem.=20
> >
> > XFree86 3.9 and XFree86 4 were rock solid for a _long_ time on 2.[34]
> > kernels - even on my BP6=B9. The random crashes started to
Alan Cox wrote:
wrong with it. I've only seen this under 2.3.x/2.4 SMP kernels. I
would say that this is definitely a kernel problem.=20
XFree86 3.9 and XFree86 4 were rock solid for a _long_ time on 2.[34]
kernels - even on my BP6=B9. The random crashes started to happen when =
On Sat, 9 Dec 2000, Matthew Vanecek wrote:
Have any of the folks seeing it checked if Ben LaHaise's fixes for the page
table updating race help ?
Alan
Where are his fixes at? I don't seem to see any of his posts in the
archives.
dwmw2 posted one such patch earlier this week :-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 9 Dec 2000, Matthew Vanecek wrote:
Have any of the folks seeing it checked if Ben LaHaise's fixes for the page
table updating race help ?
Alan
Where are his fixes at? I don't seem to see any of his posts in the
archives.
dwmw2 posted one
David Woodhouse ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote...
> Can you reproduce it with bcrl's patch below:
Did nothing for me. gcc still got a sig11 after a while.
Took three runs of 'make bzImage' before it completed.
I wondered if I'd been unlucky enough to have been sent a
replacement K6-2 which was
I'll try.
Jeff
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 10:24:55PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> > I have not seen it on UP systems either. I only see it on SMP systems.
> > After trying very hard last night, I was able to get my 4 x PPro system to
> > do it
David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...]
> I quote from the X devel list, which perhaps I shouldn't do but this is
> hardly NDA'd stuff:
> On Mon 20 Nov 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > I have seen random crashes on dual P3 BX boards (Tyan) and dual Xeon
> > GX boards (Intel).
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 11:34:51AM -0800, Mark Vojkovich wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
>Some additional data points. It goes away on UP 2.4 kernels.
> Also, I can't recall seeing this problem on IA64. Maybe it's still
> there on IA64 and I just haven't been
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> I have not seen it on UP systems either. I only see it on SMP systems.
> After trying very hard last night, I was able to get my 4 x PPro system to
> do it with 2.4.0-12. It seems related to loading in some way. If you
> have more than two
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> > I think there may be a case when a process forks, that the MMU or some
> > other subsystem is either not setting the page bits correctly, or
> > mapping in a bad page. It's a LEVEL I bug in 2.4 is
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Dick Johnson]
> > Do:
> >
> > char main[]={0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff};
>
> Oh come on, at least pick an *interesting* invalid opcode:
>
> char main[]={0xf0,0x0f,0xc0,0xc8}; /* try also on NT (: */
What's funny, is that this actually executes on
[Dick Johnson]
> > > char main[]={0xf0,0x0f,0xc0,0xc8};/* try also on NT (: */
> > me2v@reliant DRFDecoder $ ./op
> > Illegal instruction (core dumped)
>
> Yep. And on early Pentinums, the ones with the "f00f" bug, it would
> lock the machine tighter than a witches crotch. Ooops, not
>
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Matthew Vanecek wrote:
> Peter Samuelson wrote:
> >
> > [Dick Johnson]
> > > Do:
> > >
> > > char main[]={0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff};
> >
> > Oh come on, at least pick an *interesting* invalid opcode:
> >
> > char main[]={0xf0,0x0f,0xc0,0xc8};/* try also on NT (: */
> >
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> > I think there may be a case when a process forks, that the MMU or some
> > other subsystem is either not setting the page bits correctly, or
> > mapping in a bad page. It's a LEVEL I bug in 2.4 is this is the case,
>
Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Dick Johnson]
> > Do:
> >
> > char main[]={0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff};
>
> Oh come on, at least pick an *interesting* invalid opcode:
>
> char main[]={0xf0,0x0f,0xc0,0xc8};/* try also on NT (: */
>
me2v@reliant DRFDecoder $ ./op
Illegal instruction (core dumped)
> > wrong with it. I've only seen this under 2.3.x/2.4 SMP kernels. I
> > would say that this is definitely a kernel problem.=20
>
> XFree86 3.9 and XFree86 4 were rock solid for a _long_ time on 2.[34]
> kernels - even on my BP6=B9. The random crashes started to happen when =
> I
> upgraded
> Various processes have been getting random signals after heavy CPU usage.
> Playing an MPEG movie, kernel compile, or even just some small apps
> compiling sometimes. Just for the record, this isn't an OOM situation,
> I've watched this box with half its memory free or in buffers left
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Sounds like a X Server bug. You should probably contact XFree86, not
> linux-kernel
I quote from the X devel list, which perhaps I shouldn't do but this is hardly
NDA'd stuff:
On Mon 20 Nov 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> I have seen random crashes on dual P3 BX
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Sounds like a X Server bug. You should probably contact XFree86, not
linux-kernel
I quote from the X devel list, which perhaps I shouldn't do but this is hardly
NDA'd stuff:
On Mon 20 Nov 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I have seen random crashes on dual P3 BX
Various processes have been getting random signals after heavy CPU usage.
Playing an MPEG movie, kernel compile, or even just some small apps
compiling sometimes. Just for the record, this isn't an OOM situation,
I've watched this box with half its memory free or in buffers left
unattended,
wrong with it. I've only seen this under 2.3.x/2.4 SMP kernels. I
would say that this is definitely a kernel problem.=20
XFree86 3.9 and XFree86 4 were rock solid for a _long_ time on 2.[34]
kernels - even on my BP6=B9. The random crashes started to happen when =
I
upgraded my
Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Dick Johnson]
Do:
char main[]={0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff};
Oh come on, at least pick an *interesting* invalid opcode:
char main[]={0xf0,0x0f,0xc0,0xc8};/* try also on NT (: */
me2v@reliant DRFDecoder $ ./op
Illegal instruction (core dumped)
Is that the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
I think there may be a case when a process forks, that the MMU or some
other subsystem is either not setting the page bits correctly, or
mapping in a bad page. It's a LEVEL I bug in 2.4 is this is the case,
BTW. In
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Matthew Vanecek wrote:
Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Dick Johnson]
Do:
char main[]={0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff};
Oh come on, at least pick an *interesting* invalid opcode:
char main[]={0xf0,0x0f,0xc0,0xc8};/* try also on NT (: */
me2v@reliant
[Dick Johnson]
char main[]={0xf0,0x0f,0xc0,0xc8};/* try also on NT (: */
me2v@reliant DRFDecoder $ ./op
Illegal instruction (core dumped)
Yep. And on early Pentinums, the ones with the "f00f" bug, it would
lock the machine tighter than a witches crotch. Ooops, not
politically
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Dick Johnson]
Do:
char main[]={0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff};
Oh come on, at least pick an *interesting* invalid opcode:
char main[]={0xf0,0x0f,0xc0,0xc8}; /* try also on NT (: */
What's funny, is that this actually executes on SPARC
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
I think there may be a case when a process forks, that the MMU or some
other subsystem is either not setting the page bits correctly, or
mapping in a bad page. It's a LEVEL I bug in 2.4 is this is the
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
I have not seen it on UP systems either. I only see it on SMP systems.
After trying very hard last night, I was able to get my 4 x PPro system to
do it with 2.4.0-12. It seems related to loading in some way. If you
have more than two processors,
David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[...]
I quote from the X devel list, which perhaps I shouldn't do but this is
hardly NDA'd stuff:
On Mon 20 Nov 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I have seen random crashes on dual P3 BX boards (Tyan) and dual Xeon
GX boards (Intel). XFree86 core
I'll try.
Jeff
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 10:24:55PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
I have not seen it on UP systems either. I only see it on SMP systems.
After trying very hard last night, I was able to get my 4 x PPro system to
do it with
David Woodhouse ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote...
Can you reproduce it with bcrl's patch below:
Did nothing for me. gcc still got a sig11 after a while.
Took three runs of 'make bzImage' before it completed.
I wondered if I'd been unlucky enough to have been sent a
replacement K6-2 which was
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 11:34:51AM -0800, Mark Vojkovich wrote:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, David Woodhouse wrote:
Some additional data points. It goes away on UP 2.4 kernels.
Also, I can't recall seeing this problem on IA64. Maybe it's still
there on IA64 and I just haven't been trying
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
>
> > So have you enabled core dumps and actually looked at the core dumps
> > of the programs using gdb to see where they crashed ?
>
> Yes. I can only get the SSH crash when I am running remotely from the
> house over the internet, and it only shows then when
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> I think there may be a case when a process forks, that the MMU or some
> other subsystem is either not setting the page bits correctly, or
> mapping in a bad page. It's a LEVEL I bug in 2.4 is this is the case,
> BTW. In core dumps (I've looked at 2
of mapping bug.
Jeff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> > It's related to some change in 2.4 vs. 2.2. There are other programs
> > affected other than X, SSH also get's spurious signal 11's now and again
> > with 2.4 and glibc &
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> It's related to some change in 2.4 vs. 2.2. There are other programs
> affected other than X, SSH also get's spurious signal 11's now and again
> with 2.4 and glibc <= 2.1 and it does not occur on 2.2.
I've begun to get a bit paranoid a
Hi all,
Thanks for all the input so far. Regarding this...
> (I'm not sure exactly what cerberos does, do you have a link for it ?).
The official name is "Cerberus Test Control System" aka CTCS. I don't know
the official site but a search for this should reveal something. Anyway it
is
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Rainer Mager wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've searched around for a answer to this with no real luck yet. If anyone
> has some ideas I'd be very grateful.
Signal 11 just means that you "seg-faulted". This is usually caused
by a coding error. However, i
Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 06:24:34PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> >
> > Andi,
> >
> > It's related to some change in 2.4 vs. 2.2. There are other programs
> > affected other than X, SSH also get's spurious signal 11's now and
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 06:24:34PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> Andi,
>
> It's related to some change in 2.4 vs. 2.2. There are other programs
> affected other than X, SSH also get's spurious signal 11's now and again
> with 2.4 and glibc <= 2.1 and it does not occur
Andi,
It's related to some change in 2.4 vs. 2.2. There are other programs
affected other than X, SSH also get's spurious signal 11's now and again
with 2.4 and glibc <= 2.1 and it does not occur on 2.2.
Jeff
Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 09:44:29AM +0900, Rainer Ma
only info
> I get back is that it was because of signal 11.
> I've heard that signal 11 can be related to bad hardware, most often
> memory, but I've done a good bit of testing on this and the system seems ok.
> What I did was to run the VA Linux Cerberos(sp?) test for 15 ho
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 09:44:29AM +0900, Rainer Mager wrote:
> I've heard that signal 11 can be related to bad hardware, most
> often memory, but I've done a good bit of testing on this and the
> system seems ok. What I did was to run the VA Linux Cerberos(sp?)
> test
cently upgraded to a new machine. It is running RedHat 6.2 Linux (with
> a SMP 2.4.0test[8-11] kernel) and has a Matrox G400 in it. X is 4.0.1.
> Anyway, about once every 2-3 days X will spontaneously die and the only info
> I get back is that it was because of signal 11.
> I've heard
once every 2-3 days X will spontaneously die and the only info
I get back is that it was because of signal 11.
I've heard that signal 11 can be related to bad hardware, most often
memory, but I've done a good bit of testing on this and the system seems ok.
What I did was to run the VA Linux
once every 2-3 days X will spontaneously die and the only info
I get back is that it was because of signal 11.
I've heard that signal 11 can be related to bad hardware, most often
memory, but I've done a good bit of testing on this and the system seems ok.
What I did was to run the VA Linux
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 09:44:29AM +0900, Rainer Mager wrote:
I've heard that signal 11 can be related to bad hardware, most
often memory, but I've done a good bit of testing on this and the
system seems ok. What I did was to run the VA Linux Cerberos(sp?)
test for 15 hours
. It is running RedHat 6.2 Linux (with
a SMP 2.4.0test[8-11] kernel) and has a Matrox G400 in it. X is 4.0.1.
Anyway, about once every 2-3 days X will spontaneously die and the only info
I get back is that it was because of signal 11.
I've heard that signal 11 can be related to bad hardware
get back is that it was because of signal 11.
I've heard that signal 11 can be related to bad hardware, most often
memory, but I've done a good bit of testing on this and the system seems ok.
What I did was to run the VA Linux Cerberos(sp?) test for 15 hours+ with no
errors. Actually
Andi,
It's related to some change in 2.4 vs. 2.2. There are other programs
affected other than X, SSH also get's spurious signal 11's now and again
with 2.4 and glibc = 2.1 and it does not occur on 2.2.
Jeff
Andi Kleen wrote:
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 09:44:29AM +0900, Rainer Mager wrote
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 06:24:34PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Andi,
It's related to some change in 2.4 vs. 2.2. There are other programs
affected other than X, SSH also get's spurious signal 11's now and again
with 2.4 and glibc = 2.1 and it does not occur on 2.2.
So have you enabled
Andi Kleen wrote:
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 06:24:34PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Andi,
It's related to some change in 2.4 vs. 2.2. There are other programs
affected other than X, SSH also get's spurious signal 11's now and again
with 2.4 and glibc = 2.1 and it does not occur
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Rainer Mager wrote:
Hi all,
I've searched around for a answer to this with no real luck yet. If anyone
has some ideas I'd be very grateful.
Signal 11 just means that you "seg-faulted". This is usually caused
by a coding error. However, if you have t
Hi all,
Thanks for all the input so far. Regarding this...
(I'm not sure exactly what cerberos does, do you have a link for it ?).
The official name is "Cerberus Test Control System" aka CTCS. I don't know
the official site but a search for this should reveal something. Anyway it
is a
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
It's related to some change in 2.4 vs. 2.2. There are other programs
affected other than X, SSH also get's spurious signal 11's now and again
with 2.4 and glibc = 2.1 and it does not occur on 2.2.
AOL
I've begun to get a bit paranoid about my K6-2
of mapping bug.
Jeff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
It's related to some change in 2.4 vs. 2.2. There are other programs
affected other than X, SSH also get's spurious signal 11's now and again
with 2.4 and glibc = 2.1 and it does not occur on 2.2.
AOL
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
I think there may be a case when a process forks, that the MMU or some
other subsystem is either not setting the page bits correctly, or
mapping in a bad page. It's a LEVEL I bug in 2.4 is this is the case,
BTW. In core dumps (I've looked at 2 of
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
So have you enabled core dumps and actually looked at the core dumps
of the programs using gdb to see where they crashed ?
Yes. I can only get the SSH crash when I am running remotely from the
house over the internet, and it only shows then when running a
terminates the client and
browser with a signal 11. Review of the x console log prints a message:
" app_name : terminated with a Singal 11
This problem does not occur when using local ethernet. ifconfig reports
valid definitions for eth0, lo, and ppp0 interfaces and they pass
loopback te
101 - 194 of 194 matches
Mail list logo
