Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752563AbYAQLnR (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jan 2008 06:43:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751384AbYAQLnB (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jan 2008 06:43:01 -0500 Received: from nessie.weebeastie.net ([220.233.7.36]:54146 "EHLO bunyip.lochness.weebeastie.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751379AbYAQLnA (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jan 2008 06:43:00 -0500 Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:40:50 +1100 From: CaT To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc7: memory leak? Message-ID: <20080117114050.GR3940@zip.com.au> References: <20080117063410.GQ3940@zip.com.au> <1200568923.28661.9.camel@twins> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1200568923.28661.9.camel@twins> Organisation: Furball Inc. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2161 Lines: 56 On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 12:22:03PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 17:34 +1100, CaT wrote: > > cache). During the rsync the memory used grew to just shy of 1.6gig and > > now, about 2 hours after the rsync has well and truly finished, the used > > memory is at 1.23gig. This is what free reports: > > > > total used free shared buffers cached > > Mem: 2058128 1994468 63660 0 688604 11432 > > -/+ buffers/cache: 1294432 763696 > > Swap: 1048568 0 1048568 > > How much memory does: > > echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches > > gain you? 56M used now. Should all this cache usage not be counted towards the 'Cached' entry in meminfo rather then getting counted as part of used ram. I assume that this would not cause an oom situation and would be freed up if all that memory really did need to be used. > > ext3_inode_cache 1235577 1240565 768 5 1 : tunables 54 27 8 : slabdata 248113 248113 0 > > dentry 703661 749797 200 19 1 : tunables 120 60 8 : slabdata 39463 39463 0 > > buffer_head 174535 209087 104 37 1 : tunables 120 60 8 : slabdata 5651 5651 0 > > would get freed by doing that. They were indeed. > this one: > > > size-64 537590 850249 64 59 1 : tunables 120 60 8 : slabdata 14411 14411 0 > > I'm unsure about, if that one sticks around that'd be something to worry > about. See if you can monitor this value and try to determine: This went away also. > - if it ever drops > - what makes it grow (fastest) > > I guess we could stick some instrumentation in there to track that > bucket. Might help prevent upraised eyebrows or worse. :) -- "To the extent that we overreact, we proffer the terrorists the greatest tribute." - High Court Judge Michael Kirby -- 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/