On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:19:31AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 18-06-13 02:30:05, Glauber Costa wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 02:35:08PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > [...] > > > The trace says shrink_slab_node->super_cache_scan->prune_icache_sb. So > > > it's inodes? > > > > > Assuming there is no memory corruption of any sort going on , let's > > check the code. nr_item is only manipulated in 3 places: > > > > 1) list_lru_add, where it is increased > > 2) list_lru_del, where it is decreased in case the user have voluntarily removed the > > element from the list > > 3) list_lru_walk_node, where an element is removing during shrink. > > > > All three excerpts seem to be correctly locked, so something like this > > indicates an imbalance. Either the element was never added to the > > list, or it was added, removed, and we didn't notice it. (Again, your > > backing storage is not XFS, is it? If it is , we have another user to > > look for) > > No this is ext3. But I can try to test with xfs as well if it helps. > [...] XFS won't help this, on the contrary. The reason I asked is because XFS uses list_lru for its internal structures as well. So it is actually preferred if you are reproducing this without it, so we can at least isolate that part. -- 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>