Your message dated Sat, 23 Feb 2013 16:14:44 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#671691:
has caused the Debian Bug report #671691,
regarding base: SHMEM - nattch not decremented on brk(2) or exit(2)
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)


-- 
671691: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=671691
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: base
Severity: normal

Installed MolecModeling package GAMESS which uses SHMEM(2) for transmitting 
data between
concurrent processes (master/slave).  When the slave process crashes (SIGILL 
error),
neither it nor the master (which then exits gracefully) decrements the 
"shm_nattch"
variable in "shmid_ds". (See "man 2 shmat" - "Upon _exit(2)...".)

Restarting the machine does not clear the shmem table entry (entries); neither 
does a
complete power-off / reboot sequence.

Subsequent to reboot, the command "ipcs -a" shows the still extant(?) shared
memory segments.

The command "ipcrm -m <shmid>" appears to function correctly, but a subsequent 
execution of
"ipcs -a" still shows the shmem segment in the kernel table.


The function "shmdt" is useless, because it does not know the "attach address" 
of the
shared memory segment from the earlier SHMAT operations.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 6.0.4
  APT prefers stable-updates
  APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: powerpc (ppc)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-powerpc
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Dienstag, 8. Mai 2012, David Adcock wrote:
>[...)
>Please ignore this Bug Tracking Report.
>[...)

ok, thanks.

--- End Message ---

Reply via email to