> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
>
>> I am obsering a steadily increasing buffer_head value in slabinfo under
>> 2.6.17.4. I searched the net / archives and didn't find anything
>> directly relevant. Does anyone have an idea or how shall we debug it?
The problem is still there under 2.6.18-rc2. I narrowed it down to ext3
journal. To reproduce one just has to mount an ext3 partition and perform
(write) accesses to it. A loop { touch /mnt/foo; sleep 1; } suffices -
just let it run for a couple of minutes and monitor buffer_head in
/proc/slabinfo. If you mount it as ext2 the problem is gone.
Thanks
Guennadi
---------------------------------
Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
DSA Daten- und Systemtechnik GmbH
Pascalstr. 28
D-52076 Aachen
Germany
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
>>
>>> I am obsering a steadily increasing buffer_head value in slabinfo under
>>> 2.6.17.4. I searched the net / archives and didn't find anything
>>> directly relevant. Does anyone have an idea or how shall we debug it?
>>
>
> The problem is still there under 2.6.18-rc2. I narrowed it down to
> ext3 journal. To reproduce one just has to mount an ext3 partition and
> perform (write) accesses to it. A loop { touch /mnt/foo; sleep 1; }
> suffices - just let it run for a couple of minutes and monitor
> buffer_head in /proc/slabinfo. If you mount it as ext2 the problem is
> gone.
What data mode is ext3 mounted with?
Is the memory reclaimable? If yes, is it a problem?
--
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
>
>>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am obsering a steadily increasing buffer_head value in slabinfo under
>>>> 2.6.17.4. I searched the net / archives and didn't find anything
>>>> directly relevant. Does anyone have an idea or how shall we debug it?
>>>
>>
>> The problem is still there under 2.6.18-rc2. I narrowed it down to ext3
>> journal. To reproduce one just has to mount an ext3 partition and perform
>> (write) accesses to it. A loop { touch /mnt/foo; sleep 1; } suffices - just
>> let it run for a couple of minutes and monitor buffer_head in
>> /proc/slabinfo. If you mount it as ext2 the problem is gone.
>
>
> What data mode is ext3 mounted with?
Default, i.e., ordered, I guess.
> Is the memory reclaimable? If yes, is it a problem?
Yes, that's why I later wrote that the problem is not real. It was hard to
see as we had a lot of free RAM on the system, the system was idle apart
from one script that only did "touch x" periodically with the same "x"
and the buffer_head slab was growing very steadily. Unlike with ext2 /
reiserfs. That's why I decided it was not ok. But the memory is
reclaimable, so, seems like not a problem. Just a bit odd that such a
"harmless" operation causes a steady growth of buffer_heads...
Thanks
Guennadi
---------------------------------
Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
DSA Daten- und Systemtechnik GmbH
Pascalstr. 28
D-52076 Aachen
Germany
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>> Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
>>
>>>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am obsering a steadily increasing buffer_head value in slabinfo
>>>>> under
>>>>> 2.6.17.4. I searched the net / archives and didn't find anything
>>>>> directly relevant. Does anyone have an idea or how shall we debug it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is still there under 2.6.18-rc2. I narrowed it down to
>>> ext3 journal. To reproduce one just has to mount an ext3 partition
>>> and perform (write) accesses to it. A loop { touch /mnt/foo; sleep 1;
>>> } suffices - just let it run for a couple of minutes and monitor
>>> buffer_head in /proc/slabinfo. If you mount it as ext2 the problem is
>>> gone.
>>
>>
>>
>> What data mode is ext3 mounted with?
>
>
> Default, i.e., ordered, I guess.
>
>> Is the memory reclaimable? If yes, is it a problem?
>
>
> Yes, that's why I later wrote that the problem is not real. It was hard
> to see as we had a lot of free RAM on the system, the system was idle
> apart from one script that only did "touch x" periodically with the same
> "x" and the buffer_head slab was growing very steadily. Unlike with ext2
> / reiserfs. That's why I decided it was not ok. But the memory is
> reclaimable, so, seems like not a problem. Just a bit odd that such a
> "harmless" operation causes a steady growth of buffer_heads...
OK. It is just a quirk in the way that ext3 ordered interacts with page freeing
and reclaim, I think. If it is causing you no performance problems then that's
good. Though it is counter intuitive.
Thanks for the report anyway.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com