lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: inode leak in 2.6.24?
Date
David Chinner <dgc@sgi.com> writes:

> 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....

Hi Dave,

Thanks for looking into this. There's no real conclusion yet: the
simulated memory pressure sent the numbers down allright, but
meanwhile it turned out that this is a different case: on this machine
the increase wasn't a constant growth, but related to the daily
updatedb job. I'll reload the original kernel on the original
machine, and collect the same info if the problem reappers.
--
Regards,
Feri.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-02-20 15:39    [W:0.062 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site