On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:19:31AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 18-06-13 02:30:05, Glauber Costa wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 02:35:08PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > [...] > > > The trace says shrink_slab_node->super_cache_scan->prune_icache_sb. So > > > it's inodes? > > > > > Assuming there is no memory corruption of any sort going on , let's > > check the code. nr_item is only manipulated in 3 places: > > > > 1) list_lru_add, where it is increased > > 2) list_lru_del, where it is decreased in case the user have voluntarily > > removed the > > element from the list > > 3) list_lru_walk_node, where an element is removing during shrink. > > > > All three excerpts seem to be correctly locked, so something like this > > indicates an imbalance. Either the element was never added to the > > list, or it was added, removed, and we didn't notice it. (Again, your > > backing storage is not XFS, is it? If it is , we have another user to > > look for) > > No this is ext3. But I can try to test with xfs as well if it helps. > [...]
XFS won't help this, on the contrary. The reason I asked is because XFS uses list_lru for its internal structures as well. So it is actually preferred if you are reproducing this without it, so we can at least isolate that part. -- 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/
