On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 21:12:08 +0200 "Torsten Kaiser" <just.for.lkml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/14/07, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:54:26 +0200 "Torsten Kaiser" <just.for.lkml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > The page-owner code can pinpoint a leak source. See > > > > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.23/2.6.23-mm1/broken-out/page-owner-tracking-leak-detector.patch > > > > > > > > Enable CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB_LEAK, check out /proc/slab_allocators > > > > > > Did that. The output of /proc/page_owner is ~350Mb, gzipped still ~7Mb. > > > > > > Taking only the first line from each stackdump it shows the following counts: > > > > > > ... > > > > > > 354042 [0xffffffff80266373] mempool_alloc+83 > > > > This one is suspicious. Can you find the whole record for it? > > I still have all 354042 records of it. ;) > The first column is the times I found this line in page_owner. err, take another look at the changelog in page-owner-tracking-leak-detector.patch. It directs you to Documentation/page_owner.c which aggregates the contents of /proc/page_owner. > I divided the counts for the duplicate lines (mempool_alloc+83 and > kcryptd_do_crypt+0) by two, so normalize them. There still are some > false positive counts in there, so it does not match the 354042 > precisely. > > 354036 Page allocated via order 0, mask 0x11202 > 1 (PFN/Block always differ) PFN 3072 Block 6 type 0 Flags > 354338 [0xffffffff80266373] mempool_alloc+83 > 354338 [0xffffffff80266373] mempool_alloc+83 > 354025 [0xffffffff802bb389] bio_alloc_bioset+185 > 354058 [0xffffffff804d2b40] kcryptd_do_crypt+0 > 354052 [0xffffffff804d2cc7] kcryptd_do_crypt+391 > 354058 [0xffffffff804d2b40] kcryptd_do_crypt+0 > 354052 [0xffffffff80245d3c] run_workqueue+204 > 354062 [0xffffffff802467b0] worker_thread+0 > > I'm using dm-crypt with CONFIG_CRYPTO_TWOFISH_X86_64 > > > The other info shows a tremendous memory leak, not via slab. Looks like > > someone is running alloc_pages() directly and isnb't giving them back. > > Blaming it on dm-crypt looks right, as the leak seems to happens, if > there is (heavy) disk activity. > (updatedb just ate ~500 Mb) > Yup, it does appear that dm-crypt is leaking. Let's add some cc's. Thanks for testing -mm and for reporting this. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
