2.4.19-xfs eating filehandles when compiled with gcc 3.2

2.4.19-xfs eating filehandles when compiled with gcc 3.2

[Mikael Olenfalk]

Hi,

I know you might be very busy with the 2.5 -> 2.6 transition, but this
is the only list I could imagine that has the answer to my problem.


I have a Gentoo Linux 1.4 RC1 system, that ships with a GCC 3.2 compiler
and 2.4.19 with the XFS patches (and IMON btw).

I have just bootstrapped my system and everything went fine until I
first started (tried to) Gnome. It just freezes for a while and after
that it breaks and jumps back to the console.

Nothing in syslog, nothing anywhere.

A little bit later (I think after a kernel recompile) I discovered a
message like "too many open files" and catted /proc/sys/fs/file-nr which
gives this output:

8196 8006 8196

I rebooted and started this script on VC/2:

# while true; do sleep 3; cat /proc/sys/fs/file-nr; done

I then did some testing on the other console, just ran some commands
while watching the output of my script :)

First I ran a find / -name \*, which brought the second file-nr value to
6. There was some jumping between 4-6 for a while but it kept at six
after that.

Then I did recompile the kernel, the value went to 175. Then I
recompiled glibc which made it jump to 400 something. Funnily enough a
find / -name \* lowered the value by certain amount again. (But it kept
increasing after a while).

I have bootstrapped my whole system once with CFLAGS="-march=athlon-xp
-O3 -mpipe" and CXXFLAGS=$CFLAGS.

And once with "-march=athlon-xp -mcpu=athlon-xp ..." don't ask me why, I
don't know so much about these two flags, the seconds approach did at
least remove some warnings.


My first thought was that gcc 3.2 has some compatibility issues with the
kernel and glibc. Of course it could be gnome, too.

Perhaps anybody knows of any issues with gcc 3.2??



Regards,
mikael

Re: 2.4.19-xfs eating filehandles when compiled with gcc 3.2

[Chris Wedgwood]

On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 11:17:18AM +0100, Mikael Olenfalk wrote:

> I have a Gentoo Linux 1.4 RC1 system, that ships with a GCC 3.2
> compiler and 2.4.19 with the XFS patches (and IMON btw).

Does it happen when you use gcc-2.95.4+ ?


  --cw

RE: 2.4.19-xfs eating filehandles when compiled with gcc 3.2

[Mikael Olenfalk]

When using Gentoo 1.3 (which uses gcc-2.95.4+) I did not experience
these problems even if the packages where almost the same versions (some
packages changed while I was doing the transition).

I'm using the gentoo kernel 2.4.19 with xfs patches, gentoo has included
some other patches too, don't have the list at hand but I can come back
to that later.

I imagine getting some fuzzy warning messages when compiling the kernel,
in the XFS subtree, I can post these if you're interested.

I'll try the newest 2.5.x kernel as soon as the machine finished
bootstrapping again (just reinstalling the system with
CHOST="i686-pc-linux-gnu" CFLAGS="-march=athlon-xp -O3 -pipe
-fomit-frame-pointer" CXXFLAGS=$CFLAGS).

I really don't want to give up a GCC 3.2 built system with
-march=athlon-xp since the build time for a kernel decreased by almost
90 seconds after a bootstrap. I.e. a system compiled with gcc3.2
compiled a kernel at 5 minutes and a gcc2.95.4+ system compiled the same
kernel with the same .config in 6:27 minutes.


Regards,
Mikael

-----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Wedgwood [mailto:cw@f00f.org]
> Sent: den 15 november 2002 12:35
> To: Mikael Olenfalk
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: 2.4.19-xfs eating filehandles when compiled with gcc 3.2
> 
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 11:17:18AM +0100, Mikael Olenfalk wrote:
> 
> > I have a Gentoo Linux 1.4 RC1 system, that ships with a GCC 3.2
> > compiler and 2.4.19 with the XFS patches (and IMON btw).
> 
> Does it happen when you use gcc-2.95.4+ ?
> 
> 
>   --cw

Re: 2.4.19-xfs eating filehandles when compiled with gcc 3.2

[Chris Wedgwood]

On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 01:22:03PM +0100, Mikael Olenfalk wrote:

> When using Gentoo 1.3 (which uses gcc-2.95.4+) I did not experience
> these problems even if the packages where almost the same versions
> (some packages changed while I was doing the transition).

You have a solution then:  don't use gcc 3.2 for the kernel.

> I really don't want to give up a GCC 3.2 built system with
> -march=athlon-xp since the build time for a kernel decreased by
> almost 90 seconds after a bootstrap. I.e. a system compiled with
> gcc3.2 compiled a kernel at 5 minutes and a gcc2.95.4+ system
> compiled the same kernel with the same .config in 6:27 minutes.

Use 2.95.4+ for the kernel and gcc 3.2+ for user-land then.


  --cw