Weirdness with 2.4.20-ck4

Weirdness with 2.4.20-ck4

[Joshua Kwan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1186 bytes --]

So I tried out 2.4.20-ck4 on my server box, which continually leans
towards the experimental because, well, it seems to work fine.

For 13 days, everything was peachy. Then on the 14th morning I wake
up and dhcp3-server is not responding timely, since my laptop
is unable to acquire an IP address automatically. I serial in and 
init has gone D and is eating 99.8% of the CPU.

Every single process under init was DEFUNCT!

New processes also were defunct as well, after being started. I guess
bash was somehow not affected when I logged in.

I can't provide a dmesg, since the machine eventually stopped responding
and I had to hard reboot it. But unless I know for sure what's going on
soon, I'll need to move back to a vanilla kernel or perhaps try out
2.4.20aa, without the rest of the 'desktop' tuning stuff that I don't
really make use of.

Sorry I can't give much info, except possibly my .config. You can get it
at http://triplehelix.org/~joshk/linux/config.gz. If this happens again
I'll be sure to get some pstree output logged somewhere. (Would slabinfo
be useful too in this kind of situation?)

Regards
Josh

-- 
New PGP public key: 0x27AFC3EE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Weirdness with 2.4.20-ck4

[Con Kolivas]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Josh

On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 07:11, Joshua Kwan wrote:
> So I tried out 2.4.20-ck4 on my server box, which continually leans
> towards the experimental because, well, it seems to work fine.
>
> For 13 days, everything was peachy. Then on the 14th morning I wake
> up and dhcp3-server is not responding timely, since my laptop
> is unable to acquire an IP address automatically. I serial in and
> init has gone D and is eating 99.8% of the CPU.
>
> Every single process under init was DEFUNCT!
>
> New processes also were defunct as well, after being started. I guess
> bash was somehow not affected when I logged in.
>
> I can't provide a dmesg, since the machine eventually stopped responding
> and I had to hard reboot it. But unless I know for sure what's going on
> soon, I'll need to move back to a vanilla kernel or perhaps try out
> 2.4.20aa, without the rest of the 'desktop' tuning stuff that I don't
> really make use of.
>
> Sorry I can't give much info, except possibly my .config. You can get it
> at http://triplehelix.org/~joshk/linux/config.gz. If this happens again
> I'll be sure to get some pstree output logged somewhere. (Would slabinfo
> be useful too in this kind of situation?)

Using it on a server box? You should reverse patch the desktop tuning (patch 
010) at the very least. Your throughput will be higher without that and it 
may well be responsible for the hang.

Con
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+dUp4F6dfvkL3i1gRAuYDAJ9jr0p7iS07dQYr9IFLzoX40s0tvACdGhFJ
D8zOf7QDB0BAShCZS0HvePo=
=rOd+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Weirdness with 2.4.20-ck4

[Joshua Kwan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 525 bytes --]

On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 03:09:23PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> Using it on a server box? You should reverse patch the desktop tuning (patch 
> 010) at the very least. Your throughput will be higher without that and it 
> may well be responsible for the hang.

I'm running 2.4.20-rmap15e for now, but I'm quite sure I only had 001,
002, and 003.

001_o1_pe_ll_030206_ck_2.4.20.patch.bz2
002_aavm_030226_ck_2.4.20.patch.bz2
003_rl2_021215_ck.2.4.20.patch.bz2

Regards,
Josh

-- 
New PGP public key: 0x27AFC3EE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Weirdness with 2.4.20-ck4

[Con Kolivas]

On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:15, Joshua Kwan wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 03:09:23PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Using it on a server box? You should reverse patch the desktop tuning
> > (patch 010) at the very least. Your throughput will be higher without
> > that and it may well be responsible for the hang.
>
> I'm running 2.4.20-rmap15e for now, but I'm quite sure I only had 001,
> 002, and 003.
>
> 001_o1_pe_ll_030206_ck_2.4.20.patch.bz2
> 002_aavm_030226_ck_2.4.20.patch.bz2
> 003_rl2_021215_ck.2.4.20.patch.bz2

Ok. Well I don't recommend the rl2 patch, but I would recommend the first two. 

Con