From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 In-Reply-To: <13126578-A4F8-43EA-9B0D-A3BCBFB41FEC@cam.ac.uk> References: <1189850897.21778.301.camel@twins> <20070915035228.8b8a7d6d.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <13126578-A4F8-43EA-9B0D-A3BCBFB41FEC@cam.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Anton Altaparmakov Subject: Re: VM/VFS bug with large amount of memory and file systems? Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:09:24 +0100 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton , Peter Zijlstra Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Memory Management List , marc.smith@esmail.mcc.edu List-ID: On 17 Sep 2007, at 15:04, Anton Altaparmakov wrote: > On 15 Sep 2007, at 11:52, Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:08:17 +0200 Peter Zijlstra >> wrote: >>> Anyway, looks like all of zone_normal is pinned in kernel >>> allocations: >>> >>>> Sep 13 15:31:25 escabot Normal free:3648kB min:3744kB low:4680kB >>>> high: 5616kB active:0kB inactive:3160kB present:894080kB >>>> pages_scanned:5336 all_unreclaimable? yes >>> >>> Out of the 870 odd mb only 3 is on the lru. >>> >>> Would be grand it you could have a look at slabinfo and the like. >> >> Definitely. >> >>>> Sep 13 15:31:25 escabot free:1090395 slab:198893 mapped:988 >>>> pagetables:129 bounce:0 >> >> 814,665,728 bytes of slab. > > Marc emailed me the contents of /proc/ > {slabinfo,meminfo,vmstat,zoneinfo} taken just a few seconds before > the machine panic()ed due to running OOM completely... They files > are attached this time rather than inlined so people don't complain > about line wrapping! (No doubt people will not complain about them > being attached! )-:) > > If I read it correctly it appears all of low memory is eaten up by > buffer_heads. > > > # name > > : tunables : slabdata > labs> > buffer_head 12569528 12569535 56 67 1 : tunables > 120 60 8 : > slabdata 187605 187605 0 > > > That is 671MiB of low memory in buffer_heads. I meant that is 732MiB of low memory in buffer_heads. (12569535 num_objs / 67 objperslab * 1 pagesperslab * 4096 PAGE_SIZE) > But why is the kernel not reclaiming them by getting rid of the > page cache pages they are attached to or even leaving the pages > around but killing their buffers? > > I don't think I am doing anything in NTFS to cause this problem to > happen... Other than using buffer heads for my page cache pages > that is but that is hardly a crime! /-; Best regards, Anton -- Anton Altaparmakov (replace at with @) Unix Support, Computing Service, University of Cambridge, CB2 3QH, UK Linux NTFS maintainer, http://www.linux-ntfs.org/ -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org