Re: -rc3 leaking NOT BIO [Was: Memory leak in 2.6.11-rc1?]

2005-02-20 Thread Parag Warudkar
On Thursday 17 February 2005 08:38 pm, Badari Pulavarty wrote: > > On Wednesday 16 February 2005 06:52 pm, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > So it's probably an ndiswrapper bug? > > > > Andrew, > > It looks like it is a kernel bug triggered by NdisWrapper. Without > > NdisWrapper, and with just 8139too pl

Re: -rc3 leaking NOT BIO [Was: Memory leak in 2.6.11-rc1?]

2005-02-17 Thread Badari Pulavarty
On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 05:00, Parag Warudkar wrote: > On Wednesday 16 February 2005 06:52 pm, Andrew Morton wrote: > > So it's probably an ndiswrapper bug? > Andrew, > It looks like it is a kernel bug triggered by NdisWrapper. Without > NdisWrapper, and with just 8139too plus some light network ac

Re: -rc3 leaking NOT BIO [Was: Memory leak in 2.6.11-rc1?]

2005-02-17 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Parag Warudkar wrote: > > A question - is it safe to assume it is a kmalloc based leak? (I am thinking > of tracking it down by using kprobes to insert a probe into __kmalloc and > record the stack to see what is causing so many allocations.) It's definitely kmalloc-base

Re: -rc3 leaking NOT BIO [Was: Memory leak in 2.6.11-rc1?]

2005-02-17 Thread Parag Warudkar
On Wednesday 16 February 2005 10:48 pm, Horst von Brand wrote: > Does x86_64 use up a (freeable) register for the frame pointer or not? > I.e., does -fomit-frame-pointer have any effect on the generated code? {Took Linus out of the loop as he probably isn't interested} The generated code is diffe

Re: -rc3 leaking NOT BIO [Was: Memory leak in 2.6.11-rc1?]

2005-02-17 Thread Parag Warudkar
On Wednesday 16 February 2005 06:52 pm, Andrew Morton wrote: > So it's probably an ndiswrapper bug? Andrew, It looks like it is a kernel bug triggered by NdisWrapper. Without NdisWrapper, and with just 8139too plus some light network activity the size-64 grew from ~ 1100 to 4500 overnight. Is th

Re: -rc3 leaking NOT BIO [Was: Memory leak in 2.6.11-rc1?]

2005-02-16 Thread Horst von Brand
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Parag Warudkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > > Is there a reason X86_64 doesnt have CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER anywhere in > > the .config? > No good reason, I suspect. Does x86_64 use up a (freeable) register for the frame pointer or not? I.e., does -f

Re: -rc3 leaking NOT BIO [Was: Memory leak in 2.6.11-rc1?]

2005-02-16 Thread Parag Warudkar
On Wednesday 16 February 2005 06:51 pm, Andrew Morton wrote: > 81002fe8 is the address of the slab object.  08a8 is > supposed to be the caller's text address.  It appears that > __builtin_return_address(0) is returning junk.  Perhaps due to > -fomit-frame-pointer. I tried manua

Re: -rc3 leaking NOT BIO [Was: Memory leak in 2.6.11-rc1?]

2005-02-16 Thread Andrew Morton
Parag Warudkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wednesday 16 February 2005 12:12 am, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Plenty of moisture there. > > > > Could you please use this patch?  Make sure that you enable > > CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER (might not be needed for __builtin_return_address(0), > > but let's b

Re: -rc3 leaking NOT BIO [Was: Memory leak in 2.6.11-rc1?]

2005-02-16 Thread Andrew Morton
Parag Warudkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wednesday 16 February 2005 12:12 am, Andrew Morton wrote: > > echo "size-4096 0 0 0" > /proc/slabinfo > > Is there a reason X86_64 doesnt have CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER anywhere in > the .config? No good reason, I suspect. > I tried -rc4 with Manfred'

Re: -rc3 leaking NOT BIO [Was: Memory leak in 2.6.11-rc1?]

2005-02-16 Thread Parag Warudkar
On Wednesday 16 February 2005 12:12 am, Andrew Morton wrote: > Plenty of moisture there. > > Could you please use this patch?  Make sure that you enable > CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER (might not be needed for __builtin_return_address(0), > but let's be sure).  Also enable CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB. Will try that

Re: -rc3 leaking NOT BIO [Was: Memory leak in 2.6.11-rc1?]

2005-02-15 Thread Andrew Morton
Parag Warudkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am running -rc3 on my AMD64 laptop and I noticed it becomes sluggish after > use mainly due to growing swap use. It has 768M of RAM and a Gig of swap. > After following this thread, I started monitoring /proc/slabinfo. It seems > size-64 is contin

-rc3 leaking NOT BIO [Was: Memory leak in 2.6.11-rc1?]

2005-02-15 Thread Parag Warudkar
I am running -rc3 on my AMD64 laptop and I noticed it becomes sluggish after use mainly due to growing swap use. It has 768M of RAM and a Gig of swap. After following this thread, I started monitoring /proc/slabinfo. It seems size-64 is continuously growing and doing a compile run seem to make