https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473302 User matz@novell.com added comment https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473302#c9 --- Comment #9 from Michael Matz <matz@novell.com> 2009-02-09 03:41:52 MST --- So that means your initial select timeout is 1 second (where it is about 870 for me)? That's fully possible, but still would hint at the same problem. X has a list of timers (with an expire time). The select timeout is calculated in such a way that it times out at or before the next timer has to fire. The list of timers depend on the applications running on the display, so slight changes there are expected. But the general theme is still the same. My assumption is that this list of timers is not cleaned up in the bug case, so that even already expired timers stay in the list. Due to compensation code for negative offsets this would lead exactly to the picture of zero-timeout selects. (the other possibility for that to happen is with the SMART_SCHEDULE code as mentioned above) Btw. Ludwig: You can find out which application is connected to the socket corresponding to FD 40 in Xorg in the following way: # lsof -p $(pidof X) | grep '40u.*unix' X 6191 root 40u unix 0xf7c94280 0t0 20618 /tmp/.X11-unix/X0 # lsof | grep 20617 kopete 6598 matz 4u unix 0xf7c94080 0t0 20617 socket What you need to look out for is a socket filedescriptor with an inode of one less than the inode number of the socket on the X11 side (above 20618 on X side, 20617 on kopete side). This obviously depends on how the kernel invents these inode numbers, but for my kernel (32bit kernel-pae-2.6.27.7-9.1) it uses the above rules. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.