[lkml]   [2001]   [Apr]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Severe trashing in 2.4.4
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Frank de Lange wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 01:58:52PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > Hmm... I'd say that you also have a leak in kmalloc()'ed stuff - something
> > in 1K--2K range. From your logs it looks like the thing never shrinks and
> > grows prettu fast...
> Same goes for buffer_head:
> buffer_head 44236 48520 96 1188 1213 1 : 252 126
> quite high I think. 2.4.3 shows this, after about the same time and activity:
> buffer_head 891 2880 96 72 72 1 : 252 126

hmm: do_try_to_free_pages() doesn't call kmem_cache_reap() unless
there's no free page shortage. If you've got a leak...

if (free_shortage()) {
shrink_dcache_memory(DEF_PRIORITY, gfp_mask);
shrink_icache_memory(DEF_PRIORITY, gfp_mask);
} else {
* Illogical, but true. At least for now.
* If we're _not_ under shortage any more, we
* reap the caches. Why? Because a noticeable
* part of the caches are the buffer-heads,
* which we'll want to keep if under shortage.

You might try calling it if free_shortage() + inactive shortage() >
freepages.high or some such and then see what sticks out. Or, for
troubleshooting the leak, just always call it.

Printk says we fail to totally cure the shortage most of the time
once you start swapping.. likely the same for any sustained IO.


(if you hoard IO until you can't avoid it, there're no cleanable pages
left in the laundry chute [bye-bye cache] except IO pages.. i digress;)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [W:0.063 / U:0.208 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site