This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: "fork problem" debugging

On 05/28/2006, Torfinn Ottesen wrote:
Igor Peshansky <pechtcha <at>> writes:
> > On Wed, 17 May 2006, Bryan D. Thomas wrote:
>> > > I'm taking the risk of conflating several different
>> > > issues into one. On the other hand, this might be a
>> > > useful synthesis to help us bottom out on "fork
>> > > problems" so that we can turn a snapshot into a stable
>> > > release[1]?
> > > > I've been plagued by these problems for a while (since you didn't provide
> > full links in your message, I don't know whether you cited my message
> > among them without a lot of cutting-and-pasting). I would like to help,
> > but all information I have at this point is rather negative... One
> > definite data point is that unloading and reloading just Cygwin1.dll (by
> > exiting all Cygwin processes) fixes the problem for me (until the next
> > time I run that resource-intensive script that reproduces the problem).
> >

>> > > In [2] Torfinn Ottesen wrote:
>>> > > > I find that my loops are OK until after about 80
>>> > > > cases, each loop increases my memory usage by about
>>> > > > 3.2 MB
>>> > > > I am aware of the following information:
>> > > [3],[4],[5]
>>> > > > I have strace but do not know what to do with it
>> > >
>> > > I wonder if some strace like [6] would help?
>> > >

>> > > In [2], Larry Hall wrote:
>>> > > > Sounds to me like the situation you found closely mirrors the behavior
>>> > > > the MS KB article describes. I think it's worthwhile for you to
>>> > > > experiment with the workaround proposed to see if it helps. It would
>>> > > > be beneficial if you reported any results you saw back to this list.
>> > >
>> > > Torfinn, any luck on SharedSection parameter tweaking
>> > > per the MS KB?
> >

I (Torfinn, using MS Win XP Pro, service pack 1) have not tried Microsofts
claimed fix for the unexpected behaviour when running many processes, more than 50 (sic - counting more than 50 even before serious number crunching
work). Reason, see:;en-us;824422

<Quote Microsoft>
Warning If you use Registry Editor incorrectly, you may cause serious problems
that may require you to reinstall your operating system. Microsoft cannot
guarantee that you can solve problems that result from using Registry Editor
incorrectly. Use Registry Editor at your own risk.
<End quote>

The key words here are "If you use Registry Editor incorrectly".  In other
words, if you modify something other than what's recommended, you might
cause yourself other problems.  This is standard boiler-plate legalese that's
spewed whenever mention of changing the registry is uttered by MS (and
others).  While you are free to interpret it as you wish and you are, of
course, under no obligation to make these or any other changes in the
registry via the registry editor, you should not feel like the above means
that you should not edit your registry.  For those occassions where you do
edit the registry yourself, just do so with care.

-- Larry Hall RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9889 - FAX Holliston, MA 01746

Unsubscribe info:
Problem reports:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]