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

Re: XFree dramatic memory leak?



On Tue, 2003-09-09 at 01:47, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-09-08 at 06:52, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
> > 
> > I just realized that the daily updatedb run caused this 1G Ti 15"
> > powerbook to swap (with just some apps open under X).
> 
> BTW, 2.6 kernels handle this much better than 2.4 kernels. :)

But these don't happen to boot already on ppc machines right ?

> > And then I saw that XFree is taking 1.5G virtual memory and 800M Res :-(
> > 
> > It seems to be growing when one uses 2 displays ... now (after 4 days
> > uptime ) it is already at 439/272m ... can one somehow find out what
> > leaks ?
> 
> One thing to keep in mind is that the X server can use resources on
> behalf of clients, so the leak(s) could actually be in the clients. The
> restest utility available from http://www.xfree86.org/~mvojkovi/ (at the
> very bottom) shows those resources, beware that running it in an X
> terminal may cause a deadlock unless you redirect the output.
> 
> That being said, I seem to remember other reports about the server
> leaking with multihead...

hmmhhh so far I don't see anything suspicious, but as I had to reboot to
be able to work again (programs got killed because of 'out of memory'
errors) I will keep an eye on the resources X uses.

BTW, is there a way to limit the movement of the mouse cursor, i.e. I
want to limit it when I am disconnected from the second head to :0 and
then when reconnected allow the full width of :0 and :1 ?

Another BTW: I just realized that I am unable to work in any Xinerama
setup ... I really need to desktops that are separate from each other,
such that I can switch workspaces on one desktop while the other does
not change (still shows email etc...) ... So I wonder what the plans in
Xfree are... will it be possible to somehow remove the window on :1 and
put it on :0 ? Also since the xrandr stuff I wonder whether there are
plans about dynamic head addons ...

Anyway thanks for the above link,
Soeren.



Reply to: