[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: tracking memory usage/leak in "inactive" field in /proc/meminfo?
    On 02/11/2010 01:54 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
    > On 02/10/2010 06:45 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
    >> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Chris Friesen<> wrote:
    >>> In those spreadsheets I notice that
    >>> memfree+active+inactive+slab+pagetables is basically a constant.
    >>> However, if I don't use active+inactive then I can't make the numbers
    >>> add up. And the difference between active+inactive and
    >>> buffers+cached+anonpages+dirty+mapped+pagetables+vmallocused grows
    >>> almost monotonically.
    >> Such comparison is not right. That's because code pages of program account
    >> with cached and mapped but they account just one in lru list(active +
    >> inactive).
    >> Also, if you use mmap on any file, above is applied.
    > That just makes the comparison even means that there is more
    > memory in active/inactive that isn't accounted for in any other category
    > in /proc/meminfo.

    Which does not happen in the standard 2.6.27 kernel.

    Are you leaking memory in your driver?

    >> I can't find any clue with your attachment.
    >> You said you used kernel with some modification and non-vanilla drivers.
    >> So I suspect that. Maybe kernel memory leak?
    > Possibly. Or it could be a use case issue, I know there have been
    > memory leaks fixed since 2.6.27. :)
    >> Now kernel don't account kernel memory allocations except SLAB.
    > I don't think that's entirely accurate. I think cached, buffers,
    > pagetables, vmallocUsed are all kernel allocations. Granted, they're
    > generally on behalf of userspace.
    > I've discovered that the generic page allocator (alloc_page, etc.) is
    > not tracked at all in /proc/meminfo. I seem to see the memory increase
    > in the page cache (that is, active/inactive), so that would seem to rule
    > out most direct allocations.
    >> I think this patch can help you find the kernel memory leak.
    >> (It isn't merged with mainline by somewhy but it is useful to you :)
    > I have a modified version of that which I picked up as part of the
    > kmemleak backport. However, it doesn't help unless I can narrow down
    > *which* pages I should care about.
    > I tried using kmemleak directly, but it didn't find anything. I've also
    > tried checking for inactive pages which haven't been written to in 10
    > minutes, and haven't had much luck there either. But active/inactive
    > keeps growing, and I don't know why.
    > Chris

    All rights reversed.

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-02-11 20:07    [W:0.023 / U:6.568 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site