linux-kernel - Re: [2.6.17.4] slabinfo.buffer

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0609120933450.1700@pcgl.dsa-ac.de>
Date:	Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:40:03 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Guennadi Liakhovetski <gl@...-ac.de>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [2.6.17.4] slabinfo.buffer_head increases

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
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/