-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I resent this email with the slabinfo attachment on it, because I didn't think it sent at all. I got a message back telling me that slabinfo.com is not a valid attachment. Apparently if you do not put an extension on the file, it's .com . perhaps the slabinfo.txt will have more info :) if not, well then thanks for the time :)
Neil Brown wrote: > On Tuesday July 5, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>Quoting Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> >>>Hmmm. >>>There is an md related memory leak in 2.6.12, but I don't think it is >>>there in 2.6.11.anything. >>> >>>If 'ps' doesn't show anything, the next place to look is >>>/proc/slabinfo (which 'slabtop' might display for you). >> >>Slabtop: >>Active / Total Objects (% used) : 217562 / 225483 (96.5%) >>Active / Total Slabs (% used) : 3972 / 3972 (100.0%) >>Active / Total Caches (% used) : 78 / 139 (56.1%) >>Active / Total Size (% used) : 14328.78K / 15891.08K (90.2%) >>Minimum / Average / Maximum Object : 0.01K / 0.07K / 128.00K >> >> OBJS ACTIVE USE OBJ SIZE SLABS OBJ/SLAB CACHE SIZE NAME >>152098 151909 99% 0.02K 673 226 2692K fasync_cache >>24867 24846 99% 0.05K 307 81 1228K buffer_head >>12432 8306 66% 0.27K 888 14 3552K radix_tree_node >> 7308 6876 94% 0.13K 252 29 1008K dentry_cache >> 6303 5885 93% 0.36K 573 11 2292K reiser_inode_cache > > > So you have about 16 megabytes used by the slab cache, none of the big > users 'md' related. > 16M doesn't sound like a big deal, so I suspect this isn't the source > of the leak. > From a separate Email I see: > >># ipcs -m > > ------ Shared Memory Segments -------- > key shmid owner perms bytes nattch status > 0x00000000 65536 root 600 33554432 11 dest > 0x0052e2c1 98305 postgres 600 10330112 11 > > that you have 43M is shared-memory, which is more that the slab is > using but still barely 6% of your total memory. > > >>Mem: 773984k total, 765556k used, 8428k free, 65812k buffers >>Swap: 2755136k total, 0k used, 2755136k free, 526632k cached > > > The fact that swap isn't being touched at all suggests that you aren't > currently running low on memory. > The fact the free is low doesn't directly indicate a problem. Linux > uses free memory to cache files. It will discard then from the cache > if it needs more memory. > The fact that the OOM killer is hiting obviously is a problem. Maybe > you need to report this on linux-kernel was an OOM problem. > > NeilBrown > > > > !DSPAM:42caff8778281883178545! > - -- David Kowis ISO Team Lead - www.sourcemage.org SourceMage GNU/Linux One login to rule them all, one login to find them. One login to bring them all, and in the web bind them. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCywCotgErhgxHMHsRAggzAJ9/K3WJ1gNrx3aLOdB9JDeDQDtnwACeKZan qTjRYIgqvOEsvWMSfMD9vIQ= =a7r7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
