Re: lynx-dev Lynx 2.8.3.dev8: CPU problems connecting to a site

[Klaus Weide]

On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Vlad Harchev wrote:

>  I checked - no 'q' necessary. After detaching, process is unfrozen.

Ok, it seems I was wrong about 'detach'.  The process should have
continued running.

>           IMO THIS IS A BUG IN MALLOC!

Maybe it does not really 'hang', but is just very very slow at that point.
malloc might have returned eventually.  Try to step with 's' (and make
some coffee while waiting for malloc to return).

>  Look at the #1 and #2 items - these lines are indentical - this means that
>  they are the same - so IMO malloc hangs!

That made me think the process could not have been running at all between
the two stack traces.

>  May be this should be reported to glibc developers?
> 
>  One more proof: if Frederic waited more than 1 second (IMO he did), the
> second stack trace would have more than 100,000 entries - IMO stack should
> have exhausted if no malloc hang was occured!

I don't know where you get that number.
> 
>  And I noticed problems with mallocs from differenet vendors when size is
> smaller than 8 - IMO we witness the same problem.
> 
>  This should be inspected more carefully...

If someone want do nail down this possible libc problem, lynx should not
be necessary.  A much smaller test program that call malloc(7) repeatedly
should be enough.  (Possibly also from a recursive function, if there is
some interaction between stack and heap memory growth.)


   Klaus