Bug 61532 – dmalloc doesn't build - and consumes all resources in fail

Bug 61532 - dmalloc doesn't build - and consumes all resources in fail

Summary:	dmalloc doesn't build - and consumes all resources in fail

Status:	CLOSED RAWHIDE

Aliases:	None

Product:	Red Hat Linux
Classification:	Retired
Component:	dmalloc (Show other bugs)
Sub Component:
Version:	7.3
Hardware:	i386 Linux

Priority	medium Severity high
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Assigned To:	Jakub Jelinek
QA Contact:
Docs Contact:

URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Depends On:
Blocks:	61590
	Show dependency tree / graph

Reported:	2002-03-20 18:26 EST by Trond Eivind Glomsrxd
Modified:	2008-05-01 11:38 EDT (History)
CC List:	0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points:	---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:	2002-03-26 11:54:19 EST
Type:	---
Regression:	---
Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---

Attachments	(Terms of Use)
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Groups: None (edit)

Description Trond Eivind Glomsrxd 2002-03-20 18:26:03 EST

dmalloc-4.8.1-6, Skipjack

When trying to rebuild it, it slows the system down to a halt while consuming
all available memory (256+512 swap). It then gets killed by the OOM killer in
the kernel. Upgrading to 4.8.2 doesn't help. The step dying is

./dmalloc_t -s -t 10000

Comment 1 Jakub Jelinek 2002-03-25 09:09:46 EST

dmalloc is crap.

Comment 2 Jeff Johnson 2002-03-25 17:38:40 EST

Don't run the test <shrug>.

Comment 3 Jakub Jelinek 2002-03-25 17:50:51 EST

Just skipping the test is no way useful, since it will die the same way
any time you use dmalloc for something.
I've actually changed glibc this time, since
if (__builtin_expect (worklist != NULL, 0))
  free (worklist);
is IMHO faster in the common case than
free (worklist);
but dmalloc will break into pieces next time any glibc internals get changed.

Comment 4 Jakub Jelinek 2002-04-04 05:38:07 EST

This workaround is in glibc-2.2.5-28+.

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