Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754199AbXHZQtg (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:49:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751800AbXHZQt0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:49:26 -0400 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.182]:3248 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751438AbXHZQtZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:49:25 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Rqcsdb0tyypHbn60ADYs+x+aV7UUcQXw7vUWAMI6OOFvJ1151oOZBNOjCUwAvX2Bdufq8rW1zaa5Lhua50rEJdmwwOH1qQV0AvVRURPHl5RGATyxKWpR46GYvVZHBl0dWq73TqjbM6+CJg9/FCEg5PYXDnbWOYnndwsLfpiGAvo= Message-ID: <466ad3f90708260949i3b9d1c32ia8b1869196689247@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:49:25 -0400 From: "Fred Tyler" To: jengelh@computergmbh.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Slow, persistent memory leak in 2.6.20 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <466ad3f90708260739v645294b9t641cb8258dcc4f4@mail.gmail.com> <466ad3f90708260851u5d8ac58duc4072b71ebf78fc8@mail.gmail.com> <466ad3f90708260916x5d19d0d3hd828e63520960192@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1953 Lines: 45 On 8/26/07, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > On Aug 26 2007 12:16, Fred Tyler wrote: > >> Please rule out filesystem caches by issuing > >> sync; > >> echo 3 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches; > > > > >Ok, I did this on a non-production machine that has only been up for a > >few hours, and here's what happened: > > ... > >So, I guess it worked? (I don't know what was supposed to happen, but > >memory usage dropped significantly when I did this.) > > So I guess you are not seeing any memory leak at all, but just the regular > caching? I certainly hope that is the case, but until I try it on the production machine tonight I won't know for sure. If this is indeed a leak, it's pretty slow, and it takes a week or so before you can even start noticing it on the graphs I can say with absolute certainty that something very similar was happening in 2.6.12 (compare the graphs in my original email), and in 2.6.12 it would inevitably lead to the server running entirely out of memory, to the point where applications could no longer allocate memory and the server would have to be rebooted. The symptoms were almost identical in that case: I'd shut down virtually every application on the server, but the memory would still be almost entirely in use. I understand there's kernel caching, but if the kernel caching occurs at the expense of any other applications being able to access memory, then there's a real problem. (I actually still have one 2.6.12 machine running, but drop_caches doesn't appear to exist on it so I can't test it there. Is there an analogue?) Anyway, I'll post the results from the 2.6.20 server as soon as I have them. Should be late tonight. Thanks. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/