path: root/hurd/translator/ext2fs.mdwn
diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'hurd/translator/ext2fs.mdwn')
1 files changed, 63 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/hurd/translator/ext2fs.mdwn b/hurd/translator/ext2fs.mdwn
index 20faed5..e2f6b04 100644
--- a/hurd/translator/ext2fs.mdwn
+++ b/hurd/translator/ext2fs.mdwn
@@ -179,6 +179,69 @@ small backend stores, like floppy devices.
That would be a nice improvement, but only after writeback throttling is implemented.
+## Stripped vs. Unstripped `ext2fs.static`
+[[!tag open_issue_hurd]]
+### IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-17
+ <teythoon> I always had some trouble with dropping a rebuild ext2fs.static
+ into my test system and I never figured out why
+ <teythoon> I just followed a hunch and stripped the binary, and all of the
+ sudden it works
+ <teythoon> any ideas why?
+ <tschwinge> teythoon: I quick search found me:
+ <> and
+ <>.
+ <teythoon> tschwinge: ugh, thanks for the pointers ;)
+ <tschwinge> teythoon: They won't help too much I fear. Anyway, good
+ intuition (or whatever) ;-) that you found this out.
+ <tschwinge> teythoon: Not exactly related to stripped/unstripped per se
+ (that is, debug information), but in the past we've had an issue about
+ relro (see binutils/glibc, <>),
+ where a variable (that erroneously happend to be in such a read-only
+ section, if I remember correct) was tried to be modified -- which worked
+ "sometimes": depending on where exactly it was located in the binary
+ (which shifted around a page
+ <tschwinge> boundary by stripped/unstripped), it'd segfault or not. Burnt
+ several days on that before Samuel (IIRC) eventually figured it out.
+ <teythoon> tschwinge: well, thanks anyway ;)
+## Increased Memory Consumption
+### IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-18
+ <braunr> ext2fs is using a ginormous amount of memory on darnassus since i
+ last updated the hurd package :/
+ <braunr> i wonder if my ext2fs large store patches rework have introduced a
+ regression
+ <braunr> the order of magnitude here is around 1.5G virtual space :/
+ <braunr> it used to take up to 3 times less before that
+ <braunr> looks like my patches didn't make it into the latest hurd package
+ <braunr> teythoon: looks like there definitely is a new leak in ext2fs
+ <teythoon> :/
+ <braunr> memory only
+ <braunr> the number of ports looks stable relative to file system usage
+ <teythoon> braunr: I tested my patches on my development machine, it's up
+ for 14 days (yay libvirt :) and never encountered problems like this
+ <braunr> i've been building glibc to reach that state
+ <teythoon> hm, that's a heavy load indeed
+ <teythoon> could be the file name tracking stuff, I tried to make sure that
+ everything is freed, but I might have missed something
+ <braunr> teythoon: simply running htop run shows a slight, regular increase
+ in physical memory usage in ext2fs
+ <pinotree> old procfs stikes again? :)
+ <teythoon> braunr: I see that as well... curious...
+ <braunr> 16:46 < teythoon> could be the file name tracking stuff, I tried
+ to make sure that everything is freed, but I might have missed something
+ <braunr> how knows, maybe completely unrelated
+ <teythoon> the tracking patch isn't that big, I've gone over it twice today
+ and it still seems reasonable to me
+ <braunr> hm
# Documentation
* <>