From: zhong jiang <zhongjiang@huawei.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
"mgorman@techsingularity.net" <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [Question] A novel case happened when using mempool allocate memory.
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 23:31:15 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5B61D243.9050608@huawei.com> (raw)
Hi, Everyone
I ran across the following novel case similar to memory leak in linux-4.1 stable when allocating
memory object by kmem_cache_alloc. it rarely can be reproduced.
I create a specific mempool with 24k size based on the slab. it can not be merged with
other kmem cache. I record the allocation and free usage by atomic_add/sub. After a while,
I watch the specific slab consume most of total memory. After halting the code execution.
The counter of allocation and free is equal. Therefore, I am sure that module have released
all meory resource. but the statistic of specific slab is very high but stable by checking /proc/slabinfo.
but It is strange that the specific slab will free get back all memory when unregister the module.
I got the following information from specific slab data structure when halt the module execution.
kmem_cache_node kmem_cache
nr_partial = 1, min_partial = 7
partial = { cpu_partial = 2
next = 0xffff7c00085cae20 object_size = 24576
prev = 0xffff7c00085cae20
},
nr_slabs = {
counter = 365610
},
total_objects = {
counter = 365610
},
full = {
next = 0xffff8013e44f75f0,
prev = 0xffff8013e44f75f0
},
>From the above restricted information , we can know that the node full list is empty. and partial list only
have a slab. A slab contain a object. I think that most of slab stay in the cpu_partial
list even though it seems to be impossible theoretically. because I come to the conclusion based on the case
that slab take up the memory will be release when unregister the moudle.
but I check the code(mm/slub.c) carefully . I can not find any clue to prove my assumption.
I will be appreciate if anyone have any idea about the case.
Thanks
zhong jiang
next reply other threads:[~2018-08-01 15:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-08-01 15:31 zhong jiang [this message]
2018-08-01 15:37 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-08-02 6:22 ` zhong jiang
2018-08-02 13:31 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-08-02 14:17 ` zhong jiang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5B61D243.9050608@huawei.com \
--to=zhongjiang@huawei.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=labbott@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox