From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: possible (ext4 related?) memory leak in kernel 2.6.26 Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 22:38:37 -0400 Message-ID: <20081009023837.GC17512@mit.edu> References: <20081005091526.GA678@goelette.ens.fr> <20081005122752.GB27335@mit.edu> <20081005161214.GA2985@goelette.ens.fr> <20081006025006.GA9289@mit.edu> <48EA2F20.7020309@redhat.com> <20081006175502.GA12937@mit.edu> <20081007221256.GF15929@mit.edu> <20081008000227.GA32052@goelette.ens.fr> <20081008005338.GH15929@mit.edu> <200810082355.m98NtZkQ012577@goelette.ens.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Eric Sandeen , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Quentin Godfroy Return-path: Received: from www.church-of-our-saviour.org ([69.25.196.31]:46844 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753783AbYJICiq (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Oct 2008 22:38:46 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200810082355.m98NtZkQ012577@goelette.ens.fr> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 01:52:46AM +0200, Quentin Godfroy wrote: > > Indeed after a couple of days of uptime the number of dirty blocks do not go > further than ~50, so I think the bug is corrected as far as I am concerned. > > By the way, why does the kernel not commit to memory these remaining buffers > when the memory is scarse (say instead of firing an OOM killer)? The bug was the jbd2 code was bumping the reference count for the buffers, so they were considered "in-use" and thus couldn't be freed and released for other uses. Regards, - Ted