On 09/24/2012 05:43 PM, David Rientjes wrote: > On Fri, 21 Sep 2012, Nico Schottelius wrote: > >> Active / Total Objects (% used) : 1165130 / 1198087 (97.2%) >> Active / Total Slabs (% used) : 81027 / 81027 (100.0%) >> Active / Total Caches (% used) : 69 / 101 (68.3%) >> Active / Total Size (% used) : 1237249.81K / 1246521.94K (99.3%) >> Minimum / Average / Maximum Object : 0.01K / 1.04K / 15.23K >> >> OBJS ACTIVE USE OBJ SIZE SLABS OBJ/SLAB CACHE SIZE NAME >> >> 993607 993607 100% 1.21K 75358 26 2411456K jfs_ip > > Well that doesn't look good. 100% of the inode cache for jfs are being > used which either means > > - there's a memory leak, or
maybe a missing iput() somewhere? Nico, does unmounting the usb drive after killing the backup clean up the jfs inode cache? > - there's some sort of throttling issue in jfs. > > And those objects are consuming ~2.3GB of slab on your 4GB machine and > seems to only have occurred between v3.4.2 to v3.5.3. Almost nothing in jfs has changed between these releases. Only this: vfs: Rename end_writeback() to clear_inode() > It would be interesting to see what kmemleak would tell us. > > Adding Dave Kleikamp to the cc. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Jfs-discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jfs-discussion
