[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080220010405.GF155407@sgi.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:04:06 +1100
From: David Chinner <dgc@....com>
To: Ferenc Wagner <wferi@...f.hu>
Cc: David Chinner <dgc@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: inode leak in 2.6.24?
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 05:57:08PM +0100, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
> David Chinner <dgc@....com> writes:
> > On Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 12:18:58AM +0100, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
> So, I loaded the same kernel on a different machine, but that seems to
> exhibit a very similar behaviour. The machine is absolutely idle,
> nobody logged in during this period, though an updatedb ran during
> this period. However, the increase seems steady, not correlated to
> cron.daily.
>
> The contents of /proc/sys/fs/inode-nr after reboot was:
> 4421 95
>
> and now, 13h35m later it's:
> 146182 0
>
> Find the two slabinfo outputs attached.
Content-Description: slabinfo output immediately after reboot
> xfs_inode 791 800 384 10 1 : tunables 54 27 8 : slabdata 80 80 0
> xfs_vnode 790 790 384 10 1 : tunables 54 27 8 : slabdata 79 79 0
> dentry 5133 5133 132 29 1 : tunables 120 60 8 : slabdata 177 177 0
Content-Description: slabinfo output 13h35m after reboot
> xfs_inode 142548 142550 384 10 1 : tunables 54 27 8 : slabdata 14255 14255 0
> xfs_vnode 142548 142550 384 10 1 : tunables 54 27 8 : slabdata 14255 14255 0
> dentry 148003 148074 132 29 1 : tunables 120 60 8 : slabdata 5106 5106 0
> The xfs_inode, xfs_vnode and dentry lines show significant increase.
> The machine indeed uses XFS as its root filesystem. Hope this gives
> enough clues to narrow down the problem. I can try other kernels if
> needed.
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....
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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists