On 02/12/2013 08:25 PM, Jonathan Woithe wrote: >> > Better yet would be to try to upgrade these machines to a more recent >> > kernel to see if it is already fixed. Are we allowed to upgrade or at >> > least enable kmemleak? > Upgrading to a recent kernel would be a possibility if it was proven to fix > the problem; doing it "just to check" will be impossible I fear, at least on > the production systems. Enabling KMEMLEAK on 2.6.35.x may be doable. > > I will see whether I can gain access to a test system and if so, try a more > recent kernel to see if it makes any difference. > > I'll advise which of these options proves practical as soon as possible and > report any findings which come out of them. Are there any non-upstream bits in the kernel? Any third-party drivers or filesystems? David's analysis looks spot-on. The only other thing I'll add is that it just looks weird that all three kmalloc() caches are so _even_: >> kmalloc-128 1234556 1235168 128 32 1 : tunables 0 0 0 : slabdata 38599 38599 0 >> kmalloc-64 1238117 1238144 64 64 1 : tunables 0 0 0 : slabdata 19346 19346 0 >> kmalloc-32 1236600 1236608 32 128 1 : tunables 0 0 0 : slabdata 9661 9661 0 It's almost like something goes and does 3 allocations in series and leaks them all. There are also quite a few buffer_heads: > buffer_head 496273 640794 56 73 1 : tunables 0 0 0 : slabdata 8778 8778 0 which seem out-of-whack for the small amount of memory being used for I/O-related stuff. That kinda points in the direction of I/O or filesystems. -- 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>