RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Bug 1302941 - gdm3 ignores system xorg.conf generated by nvidia-settings and mangles the display layout
Summary: gdm3 ignores system xorg.conf generated by nvidia-settings and mangles the di...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 1290448
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7
Classification: Red Hat
Component: mutter
Version: 7.1
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
unspecified
high
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Florian Müllner
QA Contact: Desktop QE
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2016-01-29 04:53 UTC by Derek Schrock
Modified: 2016-05-24 09:54 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-05-24 09:54:56 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
/etc/X11/xorg.conf generated by nvidia-settings using a BaseMosic 3x2 layout for 2 NVS 510s (2.53 KB, text/plain)
2016-01-29 04:53 UTC, Derek Schrock
no flags Details
/var/log/Xorg.0.log (44.11 KB, text/plain)
2016-01-29 04:54 UTC, Derek Schrock
no flags Details
/var/log/gdm/:0.log (33.34 KB, text/plain)
2016-01-29 04:54 UTC, Derek Schrock
no flags Details

Description Derek Schrock 2016-01-29 04:53:57 UTC
Created attachment 1119340 [details]
/etc/X11/xorg.conf generated by nvidia-settings using a BaseMosic 3x2 layout for 2 NVS 510s

Description of problem:

On RHEL 7.1 once gdm starts gdm ignores system xorg.conf generated by nvidia-settings and mangles the display layout.  

The attached xorg.conf was generated by nvidia-settings using BaseMosaic to for 2 nvidia NVS 510s creates a single X server that spans across mutliple GPUs in a 3x2 layout (7680x2160).

gdm reconfigures the display layout (show in Xorg.0.log and :0.log) to a single row of 6 displays (6x1 at 15360x1080).

Using startx from a multi-user.target or a different desktop manager (xdm or lightdm) does not reconfigure the layout 

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

RHEL 7.1 gdm-3.8.4-32

How reproducible:
Always

Step to j
Using the attached xorg.conf with supported nvidia GPUs enable gdm and start the graphical.target  

Actual results:
Once gdm starts, the displays are not in the expected 3x2 layout configured in /etc/X11/xorg.conf.  gdm reconfigures the layout to be a single row of displays.

Expected results:

gdm to use the /etc/X11/xorg.conf BaseMosaic 3x2 metamodes.

Comment 1 Derek Schrock 2016-01-29 04:54:19 UTC
Created attachment 1119341 [details]
/var/log/Xorg.0.log

Comment 2 Derek Schrock 2016-01-29 04:54:45 UTC
Created attachment 1119342 [details]
/var/log/gdm/:0.log

Comment 4 Derek Schrock 2016-02-16 14:30:31 UTC
Is this a dup of bug 1290448?

Comment 5 Bastien Nocera 2016-05-24 09:54:56 UTC
(In reply to Derek Schrock from comment #4)
> Is this a dup of bug 1290448?

Yes, thanks.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1290448 ***


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.