Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932911AbYBTVRb (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:17:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1765360AbYBTVQL (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:16:11 -0500 Received: from relay2.sgi.com ([192.48.171.30]:44266 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1765266AbYBTVQI (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:16:08 -0500 Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:15:52 +1100 From: David Chinner To: Ferenc Wagner Cc: David Chinner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: inode leak in 2.6.24? Message-ID: <20080220211552.GS155407@sgi.com> References: <87hcg9hkpp.fsf@szonett.ki.iif.hu> <20080218215344.GM155407@sgi.com> <87skzoanq3.fsf@szonett.ki.iif.hu> <20080220010405.GF155407@sgi.com> <87fxvny9ru.fsf@szonett.ki.iif.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87fxvny9ru.fsf@szonett.ki.iif.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1723 Lines: 42 On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 03:36:53PM +0100, Ferenc Wagner wrote: > David Chinner writes: > > The xfs inodes are clearly pinned by the dentry cache, so the issue > > is dentries, not inodes. What's causing dentries not to be > > reclaimed? I can't see anything that cold pin them (e.g. no filp's > > that would indicate open files being responsible), so my initial > > thoughts are that memory reclaim may have changed behaviour. > > > > I guess the first thing to find out is whether memory pressure > > results in freeing the dentries. To simulate memory pressure causing > > slab cache reclaim, can you run: > > > > # echo 2 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches > > > > and see if the number of dentries and inodes drops. If the number > > goes down significantly, then we aren't leaking dentries and there's > > been a change in memoy reclaim behaviour. If it stays the same, then > > we probably are leaking dentries.... > > Hi Dave, > > Thanks for looking into this. There's no real conclusion yet: the > simulated memory pressure sent the numbers down allright, but > meanwhile it turned out that this is a different case: on this machine > the increase wasn't a constant growth, but related to the daily > updatedb job. I'll reload the original kernel on the original > machine, and collect the same info if the problem reappers. Ok, let me know how it goes when you get a chance. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group -- 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/