Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 13:19:57 +0100 From: Bob Bishop <rb@gid.co.uk> To: John Birrell <jb@cimlogic.com.au> Cc: jb@cimlogic.com.au, jdp@polstra.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Spurious SIGXCPU Message-ID: <l03020913b1a4289a2b7d@[194.32.164.2]> In-Reply-To: <199806101058.UAA14492@cimlogic.com.au> References: <l03020910b1a40fd85a38@[194.32.164.2]> from Bob Bishop at "Jun 10, 98 11:28:11 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 8:58 pm +1000 10/6/98, John Birrell wrote: >Bob Bishop wrote: >> Hi, >> >> You wouldn't perchance happen to be running anything CPU-intensive in the >> background, nice'd right down? > >Not in the background, but the foreground process is both CPU intensive >and long lived. It's a build program that checks out RCS files, >parses sources, conditionally complies and links, automatically executes >tests - all from a single execution. I've seen this die a few times due to >sig 24. I've just started it after a make world and a kernel build. It >discovers the kernel and compiler/linker are new so it recompiles and >retests everything. Hmm. I'm running an RC5 client permanently in the background at nice 19 that soaks up all the unused CPU. Never seen that fail itself though. -- Bob Bishop (0118) 977 4017 international code +44 118 rb@gid.co.uk fax (0118) 989 4254 between 0800 and 1800 UK To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?l03020913b1a4289a2b7d>