Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 14:34:42 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: John Birrell <jb@cimlogic.com.au> Cc: rb@gid.co.uk (Bob Bishop), jdp@polstra.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Spurious SIGXCPU Message-ID: <24713.897482082@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 10 Jun 1998 20:58:12 %2B1000." <199806101058.UAA14492@cimlogic.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199806101058.UAA14492@cimlogic.com.au>, John Birrell writes: >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. If you look with ps does the time consumption look sane for this process ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." "ttyv0" -- What UNIX calls a $20K state-of-the-art, 3D, hi-res color terminal 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?24713.897482082>