On Wed, 17 Oct 2012, Dave Jones wrote: > > Sounds good. Is it possible to verify that policy_cache isn't getting > > larger than normal in /proc/slabinfo, i.e. when all processes with a > > task mempolicy or shared vma policy have exited, are there still a > > significant number of active objects? > > Killing the fuzzer caused it to drop dramatically. > > Before: > (15:29:59:davej@bitcrush:trinity[master])$ sudo cat /proc/slabinfo | grep > policy > shared_policy_node 2931 2967 376 43 4 : tunables 0 0 0 : > slabdata 69 69 0 > numa_policy 2971 6545 464 35 4 : tunables 0 0 0 : > slabdata 187 187 0 > > After: > (15:30:16:davej@bitcrush:trinity[master])$ sudo cat /proc/slabinfo | grep > policy > shared_policy_node 0 215 376 43 4 : tunables 0 0 0 : > slabdata 5 5 0 > numa_policy 15 175 464 35 4 : tunables 0 0 0 : > slabdata 5 5 0 >
Excellent, thanks. This shows that the refcounting is working properly and we're not leaking any references as a result of this change causing the mempolicies to never be freed. ("numa_policy" turns out to be policy_cache in the code, so thanks for checking both of them.) Could I add your tested-by? -- 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/