Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1999-37,: Re: weird top results in 2.3.18ac2

# Re: weird top results in 2.3.18ac2

Ken Witherow (phantoml@frontiernet.net)
Sun, 12 Sep 1999 12:46:04 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Carlo E. Prelz: "2.3.18: offset in pci structure. Am I the only one?"
- Previous message: Robert Dinse: "2.2.10 NFS Strangeness..."
- Maybe in reply to: CaT: "weird top results in 2.3.18ac2"

CaT wrote:
>
> This looks very wrong. Mainly the shared mem usage report and the
> use of swap...
>
> 12:18am up 10:28, 27 users, load average: 1.00, 0.88, 0.75
> 87 processes: 82 sleeping, 4 running, 1 zombie, 0 stopped
> CPU states: 32.0% user, 11.4% system, 0.0% nice, 56.5% idle
> Mem: 126240K av, 123164K used, 3076K free, 0K shrd, 18532K buff
> Swap: 128516K av, 16108K used, 112408K free 17860K cached
>
> PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT LIB %CPU %MEM TIME COMMAND
> 18302 root 14 0 2008 2008 676 R 0 68.2 1.5 0:57 bru
> 18210 damien 2 0 880 880 676 R 0 2.8 0.6 0:18 top
> 111 root 0 0 1024 972 608 R 0 0.9 0.7 0:09 s

I too am having the same problem. 2.2.12 works fine and yesterday I
decided to try 2.3.18( and 2.3.18ac2 ) and had the same symptoms as you.
I'm using a beefed up version of RH5.2( everything updated to date by
hand not rpm ) on a K6-2:
egcs 1.1.1
glibc 2.1.2
procinfo 17( tried 16 as well )
procps 1.2.9( tried 2.0.3 as well )
binutils 2.9.4( also tried 2.9.1 )
ld.so 2.1.2( also tried 1.99 )
util-linux 2.9u

switched back to 2.1.12 and the problem was gone. Recompiled both
kernels to make sure all the latest tools were used to build and the
problem still persists. Also recompiled glibc to be sure that wasn't the
culprit. /proc/meminfo reports no shared usage.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: Carlo E. Prelz: "2.3.18: offset in pci structure. Am I the only one?"
- Previous message: Robert Dinse: "2.2.10 NFS Strangeness..."
- Maybe in reply to: CaT: "weird top results in 2.3.18ac2"