[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTikknBQeSi0w7LeUTwSiMed-6LNKBw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:46:16 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Bruno Prémont <bonbons@...ux-vserver.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.39-rc4+: Kernel leaking memory during FS scanning, regression?
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> We _know_ it didn't run continuously for 950ms. That number is totally
> made up. There's not enough work for it to run that long, but more
> importantly, the thread has zero CPU time. There is _zero_ reason to
> believe that it runs for long periods.
Hmm. But it might certainly have run for a _total_ of 950ms. Since
that's just under a second, we wouldn't see it in the "ps" output.
Where is rt_time cleared? I see that subtract in
do_sched_rt_period_timer(), but judging by the caller that is only
called for some timer overrun case (I didn't look at what the
definition of such an overrun is, though). Shouldn't rt_time be
cleared when the task goes to sleep voluntarily?
What am I missing?
Linus
--
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