On 19-Dec-01 Matthew Dillon wrote:
>:> The structure is being bzero()'d before its dynamic flag gets checked.
>:> I've included a patch below. Josef, I would appreciate it if you would
>:> apply the patch and try your system with the various procfs devices
>:> mounted again. It'
On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 11:05:22AM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> The structure is being bzero()'d before its dynamic flag gets checked.
> I've included a patch below. Josef, I would appreciate it if you would
> apply the patch and try your system with the various procfs devices
>
:> The structure is being bzero()'d before its dynamic flag gets checked.
:> I've included a patch below. Josef, I would appreciate it if you would
:> apply the patch and try your system with the various procfs devices
:> mounted again. It's an obvious bug so I'm comitting it to
On 19-Dec-01 Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
>:> hmm.. ok, there are some subsystems using sbuf's:
>:>=20
>:> linprocfs
>:> procfs
>:> pseudofs
>:>=20
>:> I think someone may have broken something in pseudofs, procfs,
>:> and/or linprocfs that is causing the VFS cache and sbuf MA
:> hmm.. ok, there are some subsystems using sbuf's:
:>=20
:> linprocfs
:> procfs
:> pseudofs
:>=20
:> I think someone may have broken something in pseudofs, procfs,
:> and/or linprocfs that is causing the VFS cache and sbuf MALLOC
:> area to run away.
:>=20
:>
On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 12:02:49AM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> hmm.. ok, there are some subsystems using sbuf's:
>
> linprocfs
> procfs
> pseudofs
>
> I think someone may have broken something in pseudofs, procfs,
> and/or linprocfs that is causing the VFS cache
hmm.. ok, there are some subsystems using sbuf's:
linprocfs
procfs
pseudofs
I think someone may have broken something in pseudofs, procfs,
and/or linprocfs that is causing the VFS cache and sbuf MALLOC
area to run away.
Anybody have any ideas?
This is the problem:
vfscache781251 49097K 73745K 85234K 24112590 0 64,128,256,2=
56K
The VFS cache is running away. When it hits the 85MB kernel malloc
limit the machine will lockup.
The sbuf usage is also scary:
sbuf1074836 33589K 33590K 85234K 21
