On 01/29/2016 01:09 PM, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote:
Here is intermediate summary of current memory leaks in FUSE client
investigation.
I use GlusterFS v3.7.6 release with the following patches:
===
Kaleb S KEITHLEY (1):
fuse: use-after-free fix in fuse-bridge, revisited
Pranith Kumar K (1):
mount/fuse: Fix use-after-free crash
Soumya Koduri (3):
gfapi: Fix inode nlookup counts
inode: Retire the inodes from the lru list in inode_table_destroy
upcall: free the xdr* allocations
===
With those patches we got API leaks fixed (I hope, brief tests show that) and
got rid of "kernel notifier loop terminated" message. Nevertheless, FUSE
client still leaks.
I have several test volumes with several million of small files (100K…2M in
average). I do 2 types of FUSE client testing:
1) find /mnt/volume -type d
2) rsync -av -H /mnt/source_volume/* /mnt/target_volume/
And most up-to-date results are shown below:
=== find /mnt/volume -type d ===
Memory consumption: ~4G
Statedump: https://gist.github.com/10cde83c63f1b4f1dd7a
Valgrind: https://gist.github.com/097afb01ebb2c5e9e78d
I guess, fuse-bridge/fuse-resolve. related.
=== rsync -av -H /mnt/source_volume/* /mnt/target_volume/ ===
Memory consumption: ~3.3...4G
Statedump (target volume): https://gist.github.com/31e43110eaa4da663435
Valgrind (target volume): https://gist.github.com/f8e0151a6878cacc9b1a
I guess, DHT-related.
Give me more patches to test :).
Thank you as ever for your detailed reports!
This patch should help the dht leaks observed as part of dht_do_rename()
in valgrind logs of target volume.
http://review.gluster.org/#/c/13322/
Can you please verify if this indeed helps?
Regards,
Vijay
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
