> Here you go. FYI, it has only taken about 3.5 days to get to this
> level of memory loss. Thanks for the help.
Ah ha!
The quick fix it to rebuild your kernel with the xfsdebug and vnode tracing
options turned off. These are development options, I do not thing we should
have made these available externally.
Steve
>
> slabinfo - version: 1.1
> kmem_cache 80 117 100 3 3 1
> ip_fib_hash 10 113 32 1 1 1
> dqtrx 1 20 192 1 1 1
> dquots 39 44 356 4 4 1
> ktrace_ent 126277 126280 1024 31570 31570 1
> ktrace_hdr 126277 126412 20 748 748 1
> xfs_chashlist 4538 6084 20 36 36 1
> xfs_ili 700 5778 144 213 214 1
> xfs_ifork 0 0 56 0 0 1
> xfs_efi_item 0 15 260 0 1 1
> xfs_efd_item 0 15 260 0 1 1
> xfs_buf_item 4 26 152 1 1 1
> xfs_dabuf 0 202 16 0 1 1
> xfs_da_state 0 11 340 0 1 1
> xfs_trans 1 156 320 1 13 1
> xfs_inode 126273 126280 492 15785 15785 1
> xfs_btree_cur 0 28 140 0 1 1
> xfs_bmap_free_item 0 0 16 0 0 1
> page_buf_t 19 360 160 1 15 1
> page_buf_reg_t 4 113 32 1 1 1
> avl_object_t 5 113 32 1 1 1
> avl_entry_t 7 339 32 1 3 1
> urb_priv 0 0 32 0 0 1
> uhci_desc 1038 1062 64 18 18 1
> ip_mrt_cache 0 0 96 0 0 1
> tcp_tw_bucket 0 30 128 0 1 1
> tcp_bind_bucket 13 113 32 1 1 1
> tcp_open_request 0 40 96 0 1 1
> inet_peer_cache 0 0 64 0 0 1
> ip_dst_cache 5 20 192 1 1 1
> arp_cache 2 30 128 1 1 1
> nfs_read_data 0 0 384 0 0 1
> nfs_write_data 0 0 384 0 0 1
> nfs_page 0 0 96 0 0 1
> blkdev_requests 2304 2320 96 58 58 1
> dnotify cache 0 0 20 0 0 1
> file lock cache 1 42 92 1 1 1
> fasync cache 0 0 16 0 0 1
> uid_cache 7 113 32 1 1 1
> skbuff_head_cache 160 360 192 18 18 1
> sock 39 48 928 11 12 1
> inode_cache 171286 209160 480 26144 26145 1
> bdev_cache 3290 3304 64 56 56 1
> sigqueue 0 29 132 0 1 1
> kiobuf 19 343 1152 9 49 2
> dentry_cache 89099 160770 128 5359 5359 1
> dquot 0 0 96 0 0 1
> filp 551 560 96 14 14 1
> names_cache 0 2 4096 0 2 1
> buffer_head 5252 45040 96 380 1126 1
> mm_struct 45 60 128 2 2 1
> vm_area_struct 1778 2006 64 33 34 1
> fs_cache 44 59 64 1 1 1
> files_cache 44 54 416 6 6 1
> signal_act 48 54 1312 18 18 1
> size-131072(DMA) 0 0 131072 0 0 32
> size-131072 0 0 131072 0 0 32
> size-65536(DMA) 0 0 65536 0 0 16
> size-65536 9 9 65536 9 9 16
> size-32768(DMA) 0 0 32768 0 0 8
> size-32768 0 0 32768 0 0 8
> size-16384(DMA) 0 0 16384 0 0 4
> size-16384 3 4 16384 3 4 4
> size-8192(DMA) 0 0 8192 0 0 2
> size-8192 1 1 8192 1 1 2
> size-4096(DMA) 0 0 4096 0 0 1
> size-4096 47 47 4096 47 47 1
> size-2048(DMA) 0 0 2048 0 0 1
> size-2048 42 70 2048 23 35 1
> size-1024(DMA) 0 0 1024 0 0 1
> size-1024 44 48 1024 12 12 1
> size-512(DMA) 0 0 512 0 0 1
> size-512 314 320 512 40 40 1
> size-256(DMA) 0 0 256 0 0 1
> size-256 1020 1230 256 75 82 1
> size-128(DMA) 0 0 128 0 0 1
> size-128 4021 4800 128 159 160 1
> size-64(DMA) 0 0 64 0 0 1
> size-64 41097 45548 64 772 772 1
> size-32(DMA) 0 0 32 0 0 1
> size-32 26240 45313 32 356 401 1
>
> On Tue, 15 May 2001, Steve Lord wrote:
>
> >
> > Could you send the output of
> >
> > cat /proc/slabinfo
> >
> > This will tell us where the memory might be if it is in the kernel.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> > > This is the output of free. It IS using it, its not cached.
> > >
> > > fudd:/home# free -m
> > > total used free shared buffers cached
> > > Mem: 374 371 3 0 0 28
> > > -/+ buffers/cache: 342 32
> > > Swap: 384 4 380
> > >
> > > This is my partition layout aswell:
> > >
> > > fudd:/home# df -h
> > > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> > > /dev/ide/host2/bus0/target0/lun0/part5
> > > 1.4G 157M 1.2G 12% /
> > > /dev/ide/host2/bus0/target0/lun0/part1
> > > 15M 7.7M 7.7M 50% /boot
> > > /dev/ide/host2/bus0/target0/lun0/part6
> > > 2.4G 1.3G 1.1G 52% /usr
> > > /dev/ide/host2/bus0/target0/lun0/part7
> > > 1.9G 98M 1.8G 6% /var
> > > /dev/ide/host2/bus0/target0/lun0/part9
> > > 27G 21G 6.2G 78% /home
> > >
> > > All but / are xfs partitions.
> > >
> > > Dana
> > >
> > > On Tue, 15 May 2001, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 15 May 2001 at 1:47pm, Dana Soward wrote
> > > >
> > > > > Is anyone else having memory problems with the CVS kernel? Ive got
> a
> > > > > server here with 384MB, and its using 325 of it right now. It should
> be
> > > > > using about 30, tops. It *might* be something to do with debian wood
> y,
> > > > > but i wanna make sure no one else is having XFS issues. Also, i cant
> see
> > > m
> > > >
> > > > Are you sure that all that memory is being used? The 2.4 kernel is ver
> y
> > > > aggressive when it comes to cacheing (which is a good thing). What doe
> s
> > > > the output of 'free' say?
> > > >
> > > > In general, you *want* all your memory used up. You just don't want
> > > > running processes to be the ones using it all.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Joshua Baker-LePain
> > > > Department of Biomedical Engineering
> > > > Duke University
> > > >
> >
> >
|