[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Kmail2 display garbled (after a while)



Hi Boris,

I got it again and I guess it has something to do with using Netbeans.

Huhh ? Yes, Netbeans creates many but small shared memory blocks.
I can't find any limit here for the number of shmem blocks nor for a max 
memory usage. But somehow it seems limited to 4096 chunks.

I just experienced a garbled Kmail window (when opening a new window for a 
reply). I quick check with ipcs in a console says: 
$ ipcs -m|grep -c ^0x
4096

I closed Kmail and Netbeans, restarted Kmail and now:
$ ipcs -m|grep -c ^0x
8

I use the original Oracle Netbeans download, Version 8.0.2.
Well, maybe it is not Netbeans but simply Java (OpenJDK 8 here) - I can't say.
However, there seems to be a shmem limit since a few weeks that hasn't been 
there before.

Any idea how to proceed ?

Tim

On Thursday 08 October 2015 11:42:25 Boris Pek wrote:
> Hi Tim,
> 
> > since I installed kde5 I have a kmail2 issue.
> > 
> > After a while the kmail2 display window becomes drawn unreadable.
> > See this screenshot:
> > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_loju3MX2rTZlNOdDRxblVTWDg
> > 
> > Stopping and starting kmail does not help.
> > Stopping and starting kdm helps for a while (until it suddenly happens
> > again).
> > 
> > I can't see anything obvious in 'dmesg' or .xsession-errors. Well I see
> > lot's of 'BadDrawable' messages, but these are not limited to kmail.
> > 
> > I am on Debian SID with latest dist-upgrade, have the problem with kernel
> > 4.1 and 4.2 (didn't test any older kernels). Grafix is internal Intel i3
> > (Sandy Bridge).
> > 
> > Any ideas how to work around that or how to pin the problem ?
> 
> $ ldd /usr/bin/kmail | grep QtGui
> libQtGui.so.4 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libQtGui.so.4
> (0x00007f984cbb0000)
> 
> kmail is currently built with old Qt4 based KDE libs. It looks that you have
> faced with issue from #800698. Please try to launch kmail from terminal and
> show the output.
> 
> Best regards,
> Boris


Reply to: