On Thu 18-04-13 18:15:41, Han Pingtian wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 07:19:09AM -0700, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 17-04-13 17:47:50, Han Pingtian wrote:
> > > [ 5233.949714] Node 1 DMA free:3968kB min:7808kB low:9728kB high:11712kB
> > > active_anon:0kB inactive_anon:3584kB active_file:2240kB
> > > inactive_file:576kB unevictable:0kB isolated(anon):0kB isolated(file):0kB
> > > present:4194304kB managed:3854464kB mlocked:0kB dirty:64kB
> > > writeback:448kB mapped:0kB shmem:64kB slab_reclaimable:106496kB
> > > slab_unreclaimable:3654976kB kernel_stack:14912kB pagetables:18496kB
> > > unstable:0kB bounce:0kB free_cma:0kB writeback_tmp:0kB pages_scanned:531
> > > all_unreclaimable? yes
> >
> > This smells either like a slab backed memory leak or something went
> > crazy and allocate huge amount of slab. You have 3.6G (or of 4G
> > available) of slab_unreclaimable. I would check /proc/slabinfo for which
> > cache consumes that huge amount of memory.
>
> Thanks your reply. But I cannot find any clues in the slabinfo:
awk '{val=$3*$4; printf "%s %d\n", $1, val}' /proc/slabinfo | sort -k2 -n
says:
[...]
kmalloc-65536 41943040
kmemleak_object 112746000
pgtable-2^12 113246208
kmalloc-8192 122159104
kmalloc-32768 137887744
task_struct 241293920
kmalloc-2048 306446336
kmalloc-96 307652928
kmalloc-16384 516620288
Hmm, how many processes you have running? Having 240M in task_structs
sounds quite excessive. Also there seem to be quite a lot of memory used
in the generic 16K, 96B and 2K caches. Core kernel usually do not use
those on its own so I would be inclined to suspect some driver.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
