Re: 2.6.39-rc4+: Kernel leaking memory during FS scanning, regression?

From: Pekka Enberg
Date: Mon Apr 25 2011 - 07:48:05 EST

Next message: Tejun Heo: "Re: [PATCH 2/3] signal: introduce do_sigtimedwait() to factor outcompat/native code"
Previous message: Bruno PrÃmont: "Re: 2.6.39-rc4+: Kernel leaking memory during FS scanning,regression?"
In reply to: Bruno PrÃmont: "Re: 2.6.39-rc4+: Kernel leaking memory during FS scanning,regression?"
Next in thread: Bruno PrÃmont: "Re: 2.6.39-rc4+: Kernel leaking memory during FS scanning,regression?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Bruno Prémont
<bonbons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 April 2011 Bruno Prémont wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 April 2011 Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Bruno Prémont wrote:
>> > > On Mon, 25 April 2011 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > >> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 22:42, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>> > >> >> On Sun, 24 April 2011 Bruno Prémont wrote:
>> > >> >> > On an older system I've been running Gentoo's revdep-rebuild to check
>> > >> >> > for system linking/*.la consistency and after doing most of the work the
>> > >> >> > system starved more or less, just complaining about stuck tasks now and
>> > >> >> > then.
>> > >> >> > Memory usage graph as seen from userspace showed sudden quick increase of
>> > >> >> > memory usage though only a very few MB were swapped out (c.f. attached RRD
>> > >> >> > graph).
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Seems I've hit it once again (though detected before system was fully
>> > >> >> stalled by trying to reclaim memory without success).
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> This time it was during simple compiling...
>> > >> >> Gathered info below:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> /proc/meminfo:
>> > >> >> MemTotal: 480660 kB
>> > >> >> MemFree: 64948 kB
>> > >> >> Buffers: 10304 kB
>> > >> >> Cached: 6924 kB
>> > >> >> SwapCached: 4220 kB
>> > >> >> Active: 11100 kB
>> > >> >> Inactive: 15732 kB
>> > >> >> Active(anon): 4732 kB
>> > >> >> Inactive(anon): 4876 kB
>> > >> >> Active(file): 6368 kB
>> > >> >> Inactive(file): 10856 kB
>> > >> >> Unevictable: 32 kB
>> > >> >> Mlocked: 32 kB
>> > >> >> SwapTotal: 524284 kB
>> > >> >> SwapFree: 456432 kB
>> > >> >> Dirty: 80 kB
>> > >> >> Writeback: 0 kB
>> > >> >> AnonPages: 6268 kB
>> > >> >> Mapped: 2604 kB
>> > >> >> Shmem: 4 kB
>> > >> >> Slab: 250632 kB
>> > >> >> SReclaimable: 51144 kB
>> > >> >> SUnreclaim: 199488 kB <--- look big as well...
>> > >> >> KernelStack: 131032 kB <--- what???
>> > >> >
>> > >> > KernelStack is used 8K bytes per thread. then, your system should have
>> > >> > 16000 threads. but your ps only showed about 80 processes.
>> > >> > Hmm... stack leak?
>> > >>
>> > >> i might have a similar report for 2.6.39-rc4 (seems to be working fine
>> > >> in 2.6.38.4), but for embedded Blackfin systems running gdbserver
>> > >> processes over and over (so lots of short lived forks)
>> > >>
>> > >> i wonder if you have a lot of zombies or otherwise unclaimed resources
>> > >> ? does `ps aux` show anything unusual ?
>> > >
>> > > I've not seen anything special (no big amount of threads behind my about 80
>> > > processes, even after kernel oom-killed nearly all processes the hogged
>> > > memory has not been freed. And no, there are no zombies around).
>> > >
>> > > Here it seems to happened when I run 2 intensive tasks in parallel, e.g.
>> > > (re)emerging gimp and running revdep-rebuild -pi in another terminal.
>> > > This produces a fork rate of about 100-300 per second.
>> > >
>> > > Suddenly kmalloc-128 slabs stop being freed and things degrade.
>> > >
>> > > Trying to trace some of the kmalloc-128 slab allocations I end up seeing
>> > > lots of allocations like this:
>> > >
>> > > [ 1338.554429] TRACE kmalloc-128 alloc 0xc294ff00 inuse=30 fp=0xc294ff00
>> > > [ 1338.554434] Pid: 1573, comm: collectd Tainted: G W 2.6.39-rc4-jupiter-00187-g686c4cb #1
>> > > [ 1338.554437] Call Trace:
>> > > [ 1338.554442] [<c10aef47>] trace+0x57/0xa0
>> > > [ 1338.554447] [<c10b07b3>] alloc_debug_processing+0xf3/0x140
>> > > [ 1338.554452] [<c10b0972>] T.999+0x172/0x1a0
>> > > [ 1338.554455] [<c10b95d8>] ? get_empty_filp+0x58/0xc0
>> > > [ 1338.554459] [<c10b95d8>] ? get_empty_filp+0x58/0xc0
>> > > [ 1338.554464] [<c10b0a52>] kmem_cache_alloc+0xb2/0x100
>> > > [ 1338.554468] [<c10c08b5>] ? path_put+0x15/0x20
>> > > [ 1338.554472] [<c10b95d8>] ? get_empty_filp+0x58/0xc0
>> > > [ 1338.554476] [<c10b95d8>] get_empty_filp+0x58/0xc0
>> > > [ 1338.554481] [<c10c323f>] path_openat+0x1f/0x320
>> > > [ 1338.554485] [<c10a0a4e>] ? __access_remote_vm+0x19e/0x1d0
>> > > [ 1338.554490] [<c10c3620>] do_filp_open+0x30/0x80
>> > > [ 1338.554495] [<c10b0a30>] ? kmem_cache_alloc+0x90/0x100
>> > > [ 1338.554500] [<c10c16f8>] ? getname_flags+0x28/0xe0
>> > > [ 1338.554505] [<c10cd522>] ? alloc_fd+0x62/0xe0
>> > > [ 1338.554509] [<c10c1731>] ? getname_flags+0x61/0xe0
>> > > [ 1338.554514] [<c10b781d>] do_sys_open+0xed/0x1e0
>> > > [ 1338.554519] [<c10b7979>] sys_open+0x29/0x40
>> > > [ 1338.554524] [<c1391390>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x26
>> > > [ 1338.556764] TRACE kmalloc-128 alloc 0xc294ff80 inuse=31 fp=0xc294ff80
>> > > [ 1338.556774] Pid: 1332, comm: bash Tainted: G W 2.6.39-rc4-jupiter-00187-g686c4cb #1
>> > > [ 1338.556779] Call Trace:
>> > > [ 1338.556794] [<c10aef47>] trace+0x57/0xa0
>> > > [ 1338.556802] [<c10b07b3>] alloc_debug_processing+0xf3/0x140
>> > > [ 1338.556807] [<c10b0972>] T.999+0x172/0x1a0
>> > > [ 1338.556812] [<c10b95d8>] ? get_empty_filp+0x58/0xc0
>> > > [ 1338.556817] [<c10b95d8>] ? get_empty_filp+0x58/0xc0
>> > > [ 1338.556821] [<c10b0a52>] kmem_cache_alloc+0xb2/0x100
>> > > [ 1338.556826] [<c10b95d8>] ? get_empty_filp+0x58/0xc0
>> > > [ 1338.556830] [<c10b95d8>] get_empty_filp+0x58/0xc0
>> > > [ 1338.556841] [<c121fca8>] ? tty_ldisc_deref+0x8/0x10
>> > > [ 1338.556849] [<c10c323f>] path_openat+0x1f/0x320
>> > > [ 1338.556857] [<c11e2b3e>] ? fbcon_cursor+0xfe/0x180
>> > > [ 1338.556863] [<c10c3620>] do_filp_open+0x30/0x80
>> > > [ 1338.556868] [<c10b0a30>] ? kmem_cache_alloc+0x90/0x100
>> > > [ 1338.556873] [<c10c5e8e>] ? do_vfs_ioctl+0x7e/0x580
>> > > [ 1338.556878] [<c10c16f8>] ? getname_flags+0x28/0xe0
>> > > [ 1338.556886] [<c10cd522>] ? alloc_fd+0x62/0xe0
>> > > [ 1338.556891] [<c10c1731>] ? getname_flags+0x61/0xe0
>> > > [ 1338.556898] [<c10b781d>] do_sys_open+0xed/0x1e0
>> > > [ 1338.556903] [<c10b7979>] sys_open+0x29/0x40
>> > > [ 1338.556913] [<c1391390>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x26
>> > >
>> > > Collectd is system monitoring daemon that counts processes, memory
>> > > usage an much more, reading lots of files under /proc every 10
>> > > seconds.
>> > > Maybe it opens a process related file at a racy moment and thus
>> > > prevents the 128 slabs and kernel stacks from being released?
>> > >
>> > > Replaying the scenario I'm at:
>> > > Slab: 43112 kB
>> > > SReclaimable: 25396 kB
>> > > SUnreclaim: 17716 kB
>> > > KernelStack: 16432 kB
>> > > PageTables: 1320 kB
>> > >
>> > > with
>> > > kmalloc-256 55 64 256 16 1 : tunables 0 0 0 : slabdata 4 4 0
>> > > kmalloc-128 66656 66656 128 32 1 : tunables 0 0 0 : slabdata 2083 2083 0
>> > > kmalloc-64 3902 3904 64 64 1 : tunables 0 0 0 : slabdata 61 61 0
>> > >
>> > > (and compiling process tree now SIGSTOPped in order to have system
>> > > not starve immediately so I can look around for information)
>> > >
>> > > If I resume one of the compiling process trees both KernelStack and
>> > > slab (kmalloc-128) usage increase quite quickly (and seems to never
>> > > get down anymore) - probably at same rate as processes get born (no
>> > > matter when they end).
>> >
>> > Looks like it might be a leak in VFS. You could try kmemleak to narrow
>> > it down some more. See Documentation/kmemleak.txt for details.
>>
>> Hm, seems not to be willing to let me run kmemleak... each time I put
>> on my load scenario I get "BUG: unable to handle kernel " on console
>> as a last breath from the system. (the rest of the trace never shows up)
>>
>> Going to try harder to get at least a complete trace...
>
> After many attempts I got something from kmemleak (running on VESAfb
> instead of vgacon or nouveau KMS), netconsole disabled.
> For the crashes my screen is just too small to display the interesting
> part of it (maybe I can get it via serial console at a later attempt)
>
> What kmemcheck finds does look very repetitive:
> unreferenced object 0xdd294540 (size 328):
> comm "collectd", pid 1541, jiffies 4294940278 (age 699.510s)
> hex dump (first 32 bytes):
> 40 57 d2 dc 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 @W..............
> 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 6d 41 00 00 00 00 00 00 ........mA......
> backtrace:
> [<c138aae7>] kmemleak_alloc+0x27/0x50
> [<c10b0b28>] kmem_cache_alloc+0x88/0x120
> [<c10f452e>] proc_alloc_inode+0x1e/0x90
> [<c10cd0ec>] alloc_inode+0x1c/0x80
> [<c10cd162>] new_inode+0x12/0x40
> [<c10f54bc>] proc_pid_make_inode+0xc/0xa0
> [<c10f6835>] proc_pident_instantiate+0x15/0xa0
> [<c10f693d>] proc_pident_lookup+0x7d/0xb0
> [<c10f69a7>] proc_tgid_base_lookup+0x17/0x20
> [<c10c1f52>] d_alloc_and_lookup+0x32/0x60
> [<c10c23b4>] do_lookup+0xa4/0x250
> [<c10c3653>] do_last+0xe3/0x700
> [<c10c4882>] path_openat+0x92/0x320
> [<c10c4bf0>] do_filp_open+0x30/0x80
> [<c10b8ded>] do_sys_open+0xed/0x1e0
> [<c10b8f49>] sys_open+0x29/0x40
> unreferenced object 0xdd0fa180 (size 128):
> comm "collectd", pid 1541, jiffies 4294940278 (age 699.510s)
> hex dump (first 32 bytes):
> 1c c0 00 00 04 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 02 20 00 .............. .
> 00 5e 24 dd 65 f6 12 00 03 00 00 00 a4 a1 0f dd .^$.e...........
> backtrace:
> [<c138aae7>] kmemleak_alloc+0x27/0x50
> [<c10b0b28>] kmem_cache_alloc+0x88/0x120
> [<c10cb95e>] d_alloc+0x1e/0x180
> [<c10f5027>] proc_fill_cache+0xd7/0x140
> [<c10f7b27>] proc_task_readdir+0x237/0x300
> [<c10c7cf4>] vfs_readdir+0x84/0xa0
> [<c10c7d74>] sys_getdents64+0x64/0xb0
> [<c13945d0>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x26
> [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
> unreferenced object 0xdd294690 (size 328):
> comm "collectd", pid 1541, jiffies 4294940278 (age 699.510s)
> hex dump (first 32 bytes):
> 40 57 d2 dc 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 @W..............
> 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 6d 41 00 00 00 00 00 00 ........mA......
> backtrace:
> [<c138aae7>] kmemleak_alloc+0x27/0x50
> [<c10b0b28>] kmem_cache_alloc+0x88/0x120
> [<c10f452e>] proc_alloc_inode+0x1e/0x90
> [<c10cd0ec>] alloc_inode+0x1c/0x80
> [<c10cd162>] new_inode+0x12/0x40
> [<c10f54bc>] proc_pid_make_inode+0xc/0xa0
> [<c10f6791>] proc_task_instantiate+0x11/0xa0
> [<c10f506d>] proc_fill_cache+0x11d/0x140
> [<c10f7b27>] proc_task_readdir+0x237/0x300
> [<c10c7cf4>] vfs_readdir+0x84/0xa0
> [<c10c7d74>] sys_getdents64+0x64/0xb0
> [<c13945d0>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x26
> [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
> unreferenced object 0xdd22df80 (size 128):
> comm "collectd", pid 1541, jiffies 4294940278 (age 699.510s)
> hex dump (first 32 bytes):
> 1c c0 00 00 04 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 02 20 00 .............. .
> 80 2c 13 dd 23 c5 6f d6 06 00 00 00 a4 df 22 dd .,..#.o.......".
> backtrace:
> [<c138aae7>] kmemleak_alloc+0x27/0x50
> [<c10b0b28>] kmem_cache_alloc+0x88/0x120
> [<c10cb95e>] d_alloc+0x1e/0x180
> [<c10c1f40>] d_alloc_and_lookup+0x20/0x60
> [<c10c23b4>] do_lookup+0xa4/0x250
> [<c10c3653>] do_last+0xe3/0x700
> [<c10c4882>] path_openat+0x92/0x320
> [<c10c4bf0>] do_filp_open+0x30/0x80
> [<c10b8ded>] do_sys_open+0xed/0x1e0
> [<c10b8f49>] sys_open+0x29/0x40
> [<c13945d0>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x26
> [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
>
> All I could fetch from the system (300k, expands to ~16MB
> for some portion of announced 6k entries):
> http://homepage.internet.lu/BrunoP/jupiter.kmemleak.bz2

VFS and procfs are all over the traces - I'm adding some more people
to CC. Btw, did you manage to grab any kmemleak related crashes? It
would be good to get them fixed as well.

Pekka
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Tejun Heo: "Re: [PATCH 2/3] signal: introduce do_sigtimedwait() to factor outcompat/native code"
Previous message: Bruno PrÃmont: "Re: 2.6.39-rc4+: Kernel leaking memory during FS scanning,regression?"
In reply to: Bruno PrÃmont: "Re: 2.6.39-rc4+: Kernel leaking memory during FS scanning,regression?"
Next in thread: Bruno PrÃmont: "Re: 2.6.39-rc4+: Kernel leaking memory during FS scanning,regression?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]