On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Christopher Masto wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 11:28:13AM -0800, John Polstra wrote:
> > > It takes no more than a well-designed operating system service to
> > > ensure that badly written programs don't fail to release resources
> > > when they crash.
> >
> > We didn't
On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 09:30:08PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christopher Masto writes:
>
> >SysV shared memory is limited, unnamed, unorganized, and uses up a
> >very scarce resource.
>
> You know, you should go back in the archives to when sysV IPC was
>
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christopher Masto writes:
>SysV shared memory is limited, unnamed, unorganized, and uses up a
>very scarce resource.
You know, you should go back in the archives to when sysV IPC was
released, and you will be able to find some *really* nasty but
technically compet
On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 02:57:38PM -0500, Christopher Masto wrote:
> > Also, it's persistent for legitimate design reasons, just like files
> > are. Applications need to clean up after themselves.
>
> You can have many more than 32 files. Files are (usually)
> well-organized and have names, so
On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 11:28:13AM -0800, John Polstra wrote:
> > It takes no more than a well-designed operating system service to
> > ensure that badly written programs don't fail to release resources
> > when they crash.
>
> We didn't design that particular service. That's why it's called
> S
< said:
> It takes no more than a well-designed operating system service to
> ensure that badly written programs don't fail to release resources
> when they crash.
Unfortunately, the System V shared-memory API is brain-damaged and
does not permit this.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | O Si
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Masto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 06:20:28PM +0100, Anton Berezin wrote:
> > I would say that the programs you've mentioned are badly written then.
> >
> > It takes no more than
> >
> > XSync(disp,False);
> > s
On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 07:58:34AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > It'd be nice if we had a utility that could clean out and reclaim the
> > shared memory in 1 swoop. Then we'd be able to shut down XFree86 (and
> > obviously any other apps using shared memory), and get on with life :)
> >
> >
On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 06:20:28PM +0100, Anton Berezin wrote:
> I would say that the programs you've mentioned are badly written then.
>
> It takes no more than
>
> XSync(disp,False);
> shmctl( shmid, IPC_RMID, 0);
It takes no more than a well-designed operating system service
On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 01:41:43PM -0500, Christopher Masto wrote:
> Personally, I have this extreme distaste for sysv shared memory. It
> is a very scarce resource that is not freed automatically, and seems
> to go completely against the unix model. Reminds me of having to free
> memory on the
On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 11:54:35AM -0500, Adam wrote:
> #!/bin/sh
> ipcs | sed "s/[ ][ ]*/ /g" | cut -f 2 -d" " | sed
> "s/[^0-9]//g" | xargs -t -n 1 ipcrm -m
Always with the sed. ipcrm `ipcs -m | awk '$1 == "m" { print "-m " $2 }'`
anyone?
--
Christopher Masto Senior Networ
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>* Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000301 09:24] wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>>
>> >I used to have a shell script to do this, but i don't know where it
>> >went.
>> >
>> >--
>> >-Alfred Perlstein - [[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL
* Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000301 09:24] wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> >I used to have a shell script to do this, but i don't know where it
> >went.
> >
> >--
> >-Alfred Perlstein - [[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> I do! (line is wrapped)
>
> #!/bin/s
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>I used to have a shell script to do this, but i don't know where it
>went.
>
>--
>-Alfred Perlstein - [[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I do! (line is wrapped)
#!/bin/sh
ipcs | sed "s/[ ][ ]*/ /g" | cut -f 2 -d" " | sed
"s/[^0-9]//g
On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 03:57:19PM -0600, Ade Lovett wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 01:41:43PM -0500, Christopher Masto wrote:
> >
> > In any case, one major offender is imlib. Since I've recently gone
> > Gnome, I've had to turn off imlib's "MIT-SHM shared memory" option
> > or things would g
* Cliff Rowley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000301 03:54] wrote:
> > In any case, one major offender is imlib. Since I've recently gone
> > Gnome, I've had to turn off imlib's "MIT-SHM shared memory" option
> > or things would go bad after a few minutes or hours of use.
>
> That explains the errors when
> In any case, one major offender is imlib. Since I've recently gone
> Gnome, I've had to turn off imlib's "MIT-SHM shared memory" option
> or things would go bad after a few minutes or hours of use.
That explains the errors when running xchat, but that doesnt explain
Netscape ;)
The annoying t
On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 01:41:43PM -0500, Christopher Masto wrote:
>
> In any case, one major offender is imlib. Since I've recently gone
> Gnome, I've had to turn off imlib's "MIT-SHM shared memory" option
> or things would go bad after a few minutes or hours of use.
Can you expand a bit on "g
On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 08:08:45PM +, Cliff Rowley wrote:
> It'd be nice if we had a utility that could clean out and reclaim the
> shared memory in 1 swoop. Then we'd be able to shut down XFree86 (and
> obviously any other apps using shared memory), and get on with life :)
Uh.. ipcrm?
The
< said:
> Maybe we can convince them / submit patches to use mmap() based shared
> memory (file-backed), which we can now do efficiently with the
> MAP_NOSYNC option.
Even better would be POSIX shared memory. It wouldn't be too hard to
have the shm_open() syscall set a file flag wh
:> are almost identical in nature to the ones I've been getting from other
:> programs *not* gtk/gdk based ;) The link between them so far is shared
:> memory...
:
:Personally, I have this extreme distaste for sysv shared memory. It
:is a very scarce resource that is not freed automatically, an
On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 09:57:48AM +, Cliff Rowley wrote:
> > More likely work in progress with broken gtk desktop voodoo.
>
> Dont you think that would be bit of a cooincidence? Since the messages
> are almost identical in nature to the ones I've been getting from other
> programs *not* gtk
> More likely work in progress with broken gtk desktop voodoo.
Dont you think that would be bit of a cooincidence? Since the messages
are almost identical in nature to the ones I've been getting from other
programs *not* gtk/gdk based ;) The link between them so far is shared
memory...
To Un
* Cliff Rowley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000229 01:59] wrote:
> Just an update on this shared memory error. After running XFree86 for a
> couple of hours, running various programs (I've not seen a pattern yet):
>
> [dozprompt@guru]# xchat
> Gdk-ERROR **: BadAccess (attempt to access private resource
Just an update on this shared memory error. After running XFree86 for a
couple of hours, running various programs (I've not seen a pattern yet):
[dozprompt@guru]# xchat
Gdk-ERROR **: BadAccess (attempt to access private resource denied)
serial 84 error_code 10 request_code 142 minor_code 1
Gdk
25 matches
Mail list logo
