[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080309111456.GA21690@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 12:14:56 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...il.com>
Subject: Re: quicklists confuse meminfo
* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> Bart reported http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9991. He
> assumed a memory leak in 32bit kernels when he analyzed the output of
> /proc/meminfo.
>
> The leak is not a leak, it's an accounting bug. quicklists keep a
> large amount of pages which are accounted as used memory.
[...]
> Another strange observation about quicklists is the imbalance of the
> quicklists across CPUs. Running the above loop on a 2way machine I can
> observe that the quicklist pages are acuumulating on one CPU. Stopping
> and restarting the loop a couple of times can shift the accumulation
> from one to the other CPU.
hm. I think we should not let this much RAM hang around in a
special-purpose allocator like quicklists. Shouldnt the quicklists be
temporary in nature, and be trimmed much more agressively?
in fact, we have a check_pgt_cache() call in cpu_idle(), which does:
quicklist_trim(0, pgd_dtor, 25, 16);
but it appears we dont do quicklist trimming anywhere else! So if a
system has no idle time, the quicklist can grow unbounded, and that's a
real memory leak IMO.
Ingo
--
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