Hi,
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 02:23, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Nobody has noticed the now-fixed leak since 2.6.6 and this one appears to
> be 100x slower. Which is fortunate because this one is going to take a
> long time to fix. I'll poke at it some more.
OK, I'm now at the stage where I can kick of
Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I run the test(20 instances of fsx) with your patch on 2.6.12-rc1 with
> 512MB RAM (where I were able to constantly re-create the mem leak and
> lead to OOM before). The result is the kernel did not get into OOM after
> about 19 hours(before it took ab
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 13:04 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 2005-04-03 at 18:35 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I run into OOM problem again on 2.6.12-rc1. I run some(20) fsx tests on
> >
Hi,
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 02:35, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Without the below patch it's possible to make ext3 leak at around a
> megabyte per minute by arranging for the fs to run a commit every 50
> milliseconds, btw.
Ouch!
> (Stephen, please review...)
Doing so now.
> The patch teaches journa
>> > > I run into OOM problem again on 2.6.12-rc1. I run some(20) fsx tests on
>> > > 2.6.12-rc1 kernel(and 2.6.11-mm4) on ext3 filesystem, after about 10
>> > > hours the system hit OOM, and OOM keep killing processes one by one. I
>> > > could reproduce this problem very constantly on a 2 way
"Martin J. Bligh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> > > I run into OOM problem again on 2.6.12-rc1. I run some(20) fsx tests on
> >> > > 2.6.12-rc1 kernel(and 2.6.11-mm4) on ext3 filesystem, after about 10
> >> > > hours the system hit OOM, and OOM keep killing processes one by one. I
> >> > > c
Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2005-04-03 at 18:35 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I run into OOM problem again on 2.6.12-rc1. I run some(20) fsx tests on
> > > 2.6.12-rc1 kernel(and 2.6.11-mm4) on ext3 filesystem, after abou
On Sun, 2005-04-03 at 18:35 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I run into OOM problem again on 2.6.12-rc1. I run some(20) fsx tests on
> > 2.6.12-rc1 kernel(and 2.6.11-mm4) on ext3 filesystem, after about 10
> > hours the system hit OOM, and OOM keep kil
Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I run into OOM problem again on 2.6.12-rc1. I run some(20) fsx tests on
> 2.6.12-rc1 kernel(and 2.6.11-mm4) on ext3 filesystem, after about 10
> hours the system hit OOM, and OOM keep killing processes one by one. I
> could reproduce this problem very
Badari Pulavarty wrote:
Mingming Cao wrote:
On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 16:23 -0800, Mingming Cao wrote:
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 14:11 -0800, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 13:56, Andrew Morton wrote:
Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I run into OOM problem again on 2.6.12-rc1. I run s
Mingming Cao wrote:
On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 16:23 -0800, Mingming Cao wrote:
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 14:11 -0800, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 13:56, Andrew Morton wrote:
Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I run into OOM problem again on 2.6.12-rc1. I run some(20) fsx tests on
2.6
On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 16:23 -0800, Mingming Cao wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 14:11 -0800, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 13:56, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I run into OOM problem again on 2.6.12-rc1. I run some(20) fsx test
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 14:11 -0800, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 13:56, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I run into OOM problem again on 2.6.12-rc1. I run some(20) fsx tests on
> > > 2.6.12-rc1 kernel(and 2.6.11-mm4) on ext3 filesystem,
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 16:17, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 11:53:04AM -0800, Mingming Cao wrote:
>
> > The fsx command is:
> >
> > ./fsx -c 10 -n -r 4096 -w 4096 /mnt/test/foo1 &
> >
> > I also see fsx tests start to generating report about read bad data
> > about the tests h
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 11:53:04AM -0800, Mingming Cao wrote:
> The fsx command is:
>
> ./fsx -c 10 -n -r 4096 -w 4096 /mnt/test/foo1 &
>
> I also see fsx tests start to generating report about read bad data
> about the tests have run for about 9 hours(one hour before of the OOM
> happen)
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 13:56, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I run into OOM problem again on 2.6.12-rc1. I run some(20) fsx tests on
> > 2.6.12-rc1 kernel(and 2.6.11-mm4) on ext3 filesystem, after about 10
> > hours the system hit OOM, and OOM keep killing pro
Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I run into OOM problem again on 2.6.12-rc1. I run some(20) fsx tests on
> 2.6.12-rc1 kernel(and 2.6.11-mm4) on ext3 filesystem, after about 10
> hours the system hit OOM, and OOM keep killing processes one by one. I
> could reproduce this problem very con
Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 03:42:32PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I'm suspecting here that we simply leaked a refcount on every darn
> > pagecache page in the machine. Note how mapped memory has shrunk down to
> > less than a megabyte and everything
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 03:42:32PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> I'm suspecting here that we simply leaked a refcount on every darn
> pagecache page in the machine. Note how mapped memory has shrunk down to
> less than a megabyte and everything which can be swapped out has been
> swapped out.
>
>
Andrew Morton wrote:
"Martin J. Bligh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nothing beats poking around in a dead machine's guts with kgdb though.
Everyone his taste.
But I was surprised by
SwapTotal: 1052216 kB
SwapFree: 1045984 kB
Strange that processes are killed while lots of swap is available.
"Martin J. Bligh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Nothing beats poking around in a dead machine's guts with kgdb though.
> >
> > Everyone his taste.
> >
> > But I was surprised by
> >
> >> SwapTotal: 1052216 kB
> >> SwapFree: 1045984 kB
> >
> > Strange that processes are killed while
>> Nothing beats poking around in a dead machine's guts with kgdb though.
>
> Everyone his taste.
>
> But I was surprised by
>
>> SwapTotal: 1052216 kB
>> SwapFree: 1045984 kB
>
> Strange that processes are killed while lots of swap is available.
I don't think we're that smart about i
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 03:20:55PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Nothing beats poking around in a dead machine's guts with kgdb though.
Everyone his taste.
But I was surprised by
> SwapTotal: 1052216 kB
> SwapFree: 1045984 kB
Strange that processes are killed while lots of swap is ava
"Martin J. Bligh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It would be interesting if you could run the same test on 2.6.11.
>
> One thing I'm finding is that it's hard to backtrace who has each page
> in this sort of situation. My plan is to write a debug patch to walk
> mem_map and dump out some info
>> I run into OOM problem again on 2.6.12-rc1. I run some(20) fsx tests on
>> 2.6.12-rc1 kernel(and 2.6.11-mm4) on ext3 filesystem, after about 10
>> hours the system hit OOM, and OOM keep killing processes one by one.
>
> I don't have a very good record reading these oom dumps lately, but this
Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I run into OOM problem again on 2.6.12-rc1. I run some(20) fsx tests on
> 2.6.12-rc1 kernel(and 2.6.11-mm4) on ext3 filesystem, after about 10
> hours the system hit OOM, and OOM keep killing processes one by one.
I don't have a very good record readin
Andrea, Andrew,
I run into OOM problem again on 2.6.12-rc1. I run some(20) fsx tests on
2.6.12-rc1 kernel(and 2.6.11-mm4) on ext3 filesystem, after about 10
hours the system hit OOM, and OOM keep killing processes one by one. I
could reproduce this problem very constantly on a 2 way PIII 700MHZ wi
27 matches
Mail list logo
