[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0122F800A3B64C449565A9E8C297701002D75DAA@hoexmb9.conoco.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:46:13 -0500
From: "Weathers, Norman R." <Norman.R.Weathers@...ocophillips.com>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
"Jeff Layton" <jlayton@...chiereds.net>
Cc: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB_LEAK omits size-4096 and larger?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: J. Bruce Fields [mailto:bfields@...ldses.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 3:58 PM
> To: Jeff Layton
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org;
> Weathers, Norman R.
> Subject: Re: CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB_LEAK omits size-4096 and larger?
>
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 04:09:47PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:52:22 -0400
> > "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm probably missing something fundamental--why doesn't
> > > /proc/slab_allocators show any results for size-x where x >= 4096?
> > >
> > > Someone's seeing a performance problem with the linux nfs
> server. One
> > > of the symptoms is the "size-4096" slab cache seems to be out of
> > > control. I assumed that meant that memory allocated by
> kmalloc() might
> > > be leaking, so figured it might be interesting to turn on
> > > CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB_LEAK. As far as I can tell what that
> does is list
> > > kmalloc() callers in /proc/slab_allocators. But that
> doesn't seem to be
> > > showing any results for size-4096. Can anyone provide a clue?
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > --b.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Hmm...I've never used this, but in kmem_cache_alloc():
> >
> > /*
> > * Enable redzoning and last user accounting,
> except for caches with
> > * large objects, if the increased size would
> increase the object size
> > * above the next power of two: caches with object
> sizes just above a
> > * power of two have a significant amount of
> internal fragmentation.
> > */
> > if (size < 4096 || fls(size - 1) == fls(size-1 +
> REDZONE_ALIGN +
> > 2 *
> sizeof(unsigned long long)))
> > flags |= SLAB_RED_ZONE | SLAB_STORE_USER;
> >
> >
> > ...looks like it specifically excludes some caches.
>
> Ah, I missed that! I'm a little confused as to how those
> flags behavior
> affect the collection of the leak debugging data, but I can
> verify that
> the below does result in size-4096 showing up in
> /proc/slab_allocators;
> hopefully there's no more negative result than the
> performance penalty.
>
> Norman, do you think you could try applying this and then
> trying again?
>
> --b.
I will try and get it patched and retested, but it may be a day or two
before I can get back the information due to production jobs now
running. Once they finish up, I will get back with the info.
Thanks everyone for looking at this, by the way!
>
>
> diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
> index 06236e4..b379e31 100644
> --- a/mm/slab.c
> +++ b/mm/slab.c
> @@ -2202,7 +2202,7 @@ kmem_cache_create (const char *name,
> size_t size, size_t align,
> * above the next power of two: caches with object
> sizes just above a
> * power of two have a significant amount of internal
> fragmentation.
> */
> - if (size < 4096 || fls(size - 1) == fls(size-1 + REDZONE_ALIGN +
> + if (size < 8192 || fls(size - 1) == fls(size-1 + REDZONE_ALIGN +
> 2 *
> sizeof(unsigned long long)))
> flags |= SLAB_RED_ZONE | SLAB_STORE_USER;
> if (!(flags & SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU))
>
Norman Weathers
--
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