On Sat, 2013-04-20 at 23:32 +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> Hello Ben,
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 10:59 +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> >> Hello Ben,
> >> i'm a collegue of Daniele and I'd like to add some more information on
> >> this issue, which
Sandro Tosi wrote:
> I don't know how affordable that is: we're only able to replicate it
> on production env (not exactly the best place to run tests) and after
> at least 7/10 days of live traffic
In that case, a good first step would be to try to replicate it in a
more artificial setting, I gu
Hello Jonathan,
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> If you can run a "reverse bisect" to find which commit or
> configuration change fixed it, then I'd be happy to review the patch
> that that finds and propose it if appropriate for upstream inclusion.
I don't know how aff
Sandro Tosi wrote:
> We reached you also because you're the current maintainer of upstream
> 3.2 branch and because we didn't want Wheezy to release with this bug.
> We're testing a custom-built 3.7.10 kernel and the slab memory leak
> seems to be gone (but we're facing with system freezes).
If y
Hello Ben,
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 10:59 +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> Hello Ben,
>> i'm a collegue of Daniele and I'd like to add some more information on
>> this issue, which we're still facing with 3.2.35-2~bpo60+1 .
> [...]
>> Please let us
On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 10:59 +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> Hello Ben,
> i'm a collegue of Daniele and I'd like to add some more information on
> this issue, which we're still facing with 3.2.35-2~bpo60+1 .
[...]
> Please let us know if you need more information, if we can run some
> diagnostics or try
Hello Ben,
i'm a collegue of Daniele and I'd like to add some more information on
this issue, which we're still facing with 3.2.35-2~bpo60+1 .
First of all, we saw there's a new version for bpo, do you want us to
update and see if it fixes? We don't want to keep changing the
platform (if not under
On 09/03/2013 18:46, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 18:22 +0100, Daniele Melosi wrote:
>> On 05/03/2013 03:40, Ben Hutchings wrote:
# wc -l /proc/mounts
329219 /proc/mounts
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Er, wow, that's a lot. Does this *also* increase over time, or are
>>> those mostly
On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 18:22 +0100, Daniele Melosi wrote:
> On 05/03/2013 03:40, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >> # wc -l /proc/mounts
> >> 329219 /proc/mounts
> > [...]
> >
> > Er, wow, that's a lot. Does this *also* increase over time, or are
> > those mostly mounted at boot?
>
> I agree, it's a lot.
On 05/03/2013 03:40, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> # wc -l /proc/mounts
>> 329219 /proc/mounts
> [...]
>
> Er, wow, that's a lot. Does this *also* increase over time, or are
> those mostly mounted at boot?
I agree, it's a lot.
The number of entries in /proc/mounts file increase over time, at the
boot
On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 10:00 +0100, Daniele Melosi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> after kernel upgrade i've the following situation:
>
> after 2 days of uptime:
> 08:41:41 up 2 days, 14:56, 0 users, load average: 13.07, 13.83, 13.65
> size-192(DMA) 0 0192 201 : tunables 120 60
> 8
Hi,
after kernel upgrade i've the following situation:
after 2 days of uptime:
08:41:41 up 2 days, 14:56, 0 users, load average: 13.07, 13.83, 13.65
size-192(DMA) 0 0192 201 : tunables 120 60
8 : slabdata 0 0 0
size-192 35599 83060192
Control: tag -1 moreinfo
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 09:11 +0100, Daniele Melosi wrote:
> Package: linux-image-3.2.0-0.bpo.3-amd64
> Version: 3.2.23-1~bpo60+2
This is quite a few months out of date and there have been many bug
fixes since then. Please upgrade to linux-image-3.2.0-0.bpo.4-amd64
version
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 698829 src:linux 3.2.23-1~bpo60+2
Bug #698829 [linux-image-3.2.0-0.bpo.3-amd64] kernel swap after upgrade to
3.2.23-1~bpo60+2
Warning: Unknown package 'linux-image-3.2.0-0.bpo.3-amd64'
Bug reassigned from package 'linux-image-3.2.0-0.bpo
14 matches
Mail list logo
