xorg: Maximum number of clients reached

[Michael Butash]

So Chromium is definitely causing the x client limit to be hit, but "not 
always"...  It's really odd, and I can't explain it.

So at prior recommendations, I began using watch on results of 
"xlsclients | wc -l", ulimit -n, and a cat on /pro/sys/fs/file-nr 
(another representation of file handling), and I've been using the 
desktop fine before over night/this morning without hitting limits.

Weird part is, until something apparently "pops", it'll work fine.  A 
fresh reboot, with chrome launched usually has 120 x client sessions in 
use, with Chrome and Chromium both.  Once whatever it is breaks, goes 
haywire, whatever, I kill chromium, it returns to 135 sessions in use, 
and launching it again drives it instantly over the max.

With Chromium open
/pro/sys/fs/file-nr shows 20.5k file allocations at the time
ulimit -n shows 524,288 at the moment
xlsclients | wc -l == Maximum number of clients reachedxlsclients:  
unable to open display ":0"

Killing Chromium
/pro/sys/fs/file-nr shows 17.5k file allocations at the time
ulimit -n shows 524,288 at the moment
xlsclients | wc -l == 135

Sadly I'm almost at a point where I can't NOT use chromium with work 
dependencies on google-based services and extensions that simply don't 
have equal or exist under firefox, or I'd simply banish this thing to 
hell.  I'm not even sure I can systrace effectively what is wigging out 
chromium since it's so entirely threaded, but apparently I need to do 
some "debug chrome|chromium stupidity 101" today.

-mb



On 06/14/2015 10:57 PM, Michael Butash wrote:
> Yeah, I've run into that first, I blew out/increased my ulimit's to 
> those to some 768k from a default 32k (chrome, thanks), and didn't 
> seem to hit those last time, rather just the xclient limit.  Not 
> really sure how much I *should* open them really, considering 32k is 
> default, even setting to 3/4 of a million seems absurd, or a bug, or 
> just google + now kodi.
>
> I haven't used windoze in so long - do they just not limit anything 
> ala fork-bomb style file descriptors?  It's that old paranoia that 
> linux bothers to set some limits (justified, I had an old 
> security-inclined buddy fubar a system of mine once to prove it, 
> single-user style to recover), but seems there just aren't limits 
> under windoze that people consider.
>
> Guess people are just used to windoze tipping over and rebooting. 
> Granted, so am I at this point linux.
>
> -mb