From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32680 invoked by alias); 9 Apr 2008 11:51:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 32671 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Apr 2008 11:51:42 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from 204-133-123-27.dia.static.slbbi.com (HELO mail.chez-thomas.org) (204.133.123.27) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Apr 2008 11:51:24 +0000 Received: by mail.chez-thomas.org (Postfix, from userid 999) id 3695E68C8077; Wed, 9 Apr 2008 05:51:23 -0600 (MDT) Received: from hermes.chez-thomas.org (hermes_local [192.168.1.101]) by mail.chez-thomas.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1568268C8075; Wed, 9 Apr 2008 05:51:21 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <47FCADB8.1000509@mlbassoc.com> Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 12:08:00 -0000 From: Gary Thomas User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080226) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grant Edwards CC: ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com References: <20080408202951.GH3552@lunn.ch> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact ecos-discuss-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-discuss-owner@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: Re: [ECOS] Re: "PANIC: zinit: Out of memory" when num sockets increased to 64 X-SW-Source: 2008-04/txt/msg00150.txt.bz2 Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2008-04-08, Andrew Lunn wrote: >>> So there's well over 15MB of unallocated RAM. That seems like >>> more than enough RAM to handle 64 sockets. >>> >>> Why am I getting a panic on startup? >> The network stack has its own memory pool. See >> >> CYGPKG_NET_MEM_USAGE, CYGPKG_NET_MEMPOOL_SIZE, CYGPKG_NET_MBUFS_SIZE, >> CYGPKG_NET_MBUFS_SIZE. > > Several other people seem to have tripped over this bug. IMO, > the problem is that the default value takes the number of > sockets into account, and the description claims that value is > guaranteed to allow the network stack to start up. > > One presumes that the minimum value required for stack startup > could be calculated at configure time based on the max number > of sockets. Since that isn't being done, should I submit a > patch that would change the description so that it doesn't say > that it is? > Or, better yet, improve the CDL so it behaves as folks expect :-) -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Gary Thomas | Consulting for the MLB Associates | Embedded world ------------------------------------------------------------ -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss