On Fri, 8 Jun 2012, David Rientjes wrote: > On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Dave Jones wrote: > > > OBJS ACTIVE USE OBJ SIZE SLABS OBJ/SLAB CACHE SIZE NAME > > 142524 142420 99% 9.67K 47510 3 1520320K task_struct > > 142560 142417 99% 1.75K 7920 18 253440K signal_cache > > 142428 142302 99% 1.19K 5478 26 175296K task_xstate > > 306064 289292 94% 0.36K 6956 44 111296K debug_objects_cache > > 143488 143306 99% 0.50K 4484 32 71744K cred_jar > > 142560 142421 99% 0.50K 4455 32 71280K task_delay_info > > 150753 145021 96% 0.45K 4308 35 68928K kmalloc-128 > > > > Why so many task_structs ? There's only 128 processes running, and most of them > > are kernel threads. > > > > Do you have CONFIG_OPROFILE enabled? > > > /sys/kernel/slab/task_struct/alloc_calls shows.. > > > > 142421 copy_process.part.21+0xbb/0x1790 age=8/19929576/48173720 pid=0-16867 cpus=0-7 > > > > I get the impression that the oom-killer hasn't cleaned up properly after killing some of > > those forked processes. > > > > any thoughts ? > > > > If we're leaking task_struct's, meaning that put_task_struct() isn't > actually freeing them when the refcount goes to 0, then it's certainly not > because of the oom killer which only sends a SIGKILL to the selected > process. I rather suspect, that this is a asymetry between get_ and put_task_struct and refcount just doesn't go to zero. Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>