From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751208AbWDST5w (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Apr 2006 15:57:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751209AbWDST5w (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Apr 2006 15:57:52 -0400 Received: from silver.veritas.com ([143.127.12.111]:777 "EHLO silver.veritas.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751208AbWDST5v (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Apr 2006 15:57:51 -0400 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="4.04,136,1144047600"; d="scan'208"; a="37366211:sNHT22685564" Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 20:57:42 +0100 (BST) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@blonde.wat.veritas.com To: Greg KH cc: David Wilk , stable@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [stable] 2.6.16.6 breaks java... sort of In-Reply-To: <20060419192803.GA19852@kroah.com> Message-ID: References: <20060419192803.GA19852@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Apr 2006 19:57:50.0533 (UTC) FILETIME=[89B34750:01C663EB] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 12:52:33PM -0600, David Wilk wrote: > > > > I think an issue was introduced with mprotect (the first patch in > > 2.6.16.6). With 2.6.16.5, tomcat runs fine (in sun-1.5), but in > > 2.6.16.7, the JVM bails out complaining that it couldn't allocate > > enough heap space. > > > > If I remove '-Xmx768m' from JAVA_OPTS, then the JVM is able to > > startup. The machine had 1GB of RAM and 2GB of swap, so it should > > have had plenty to give the JVM the 1GB it expects to get with an Xmx > > of 768MB, and this worked in 2.6.16.5 and below. > > > > I don't know if this is expected and satisfactory behavior, but I > > figured I should give ya'll the heads up. > > Odds are it isn't "expected", but Hugh would be the best judge of that. > Hugh? Neither expected nor satisfactory. Sorry about that. We were hoping the straightforward shm/mprotect fix would be good enough, but it appears not. JVM is probably doing something we can allow with a more complicated patch, but it _might_ turn out to be doing something we simply cannot allow: I'll hope for the first and work out a patch for that; but won't be ready to post it until tomorrow. If you can get an strace of what it's doing, David, please mail that to me; but I'm guessing that it may be hard to get, and dispiritingly large: so don't worry unless it's easy for you. > thanks for letting us know about this, Indeed, and sorry for the inconvenience. Hugh