From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mbizon@freebox.fr (Maxime Bizon) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 22:02:31 +0100 Subject: Recent 3.x kernels: Memory leak causing OOMs In-Reply-To: <20140216225000.GO30257@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20140216200503.GN30257@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20140216225000.GO30257@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <1392670951.24429.10.camel@sakura.staff.proxad.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sun, 2014-02-16 at 22:50 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > http://www.home.arm.linux.org.uk/~rmk/misc/log-20140208.txt [] (__alloc_pages_nodemask+0x0/0x694) from [] (sk_page_frag_refill+0x78/0x108) [] (sk_page_frag_refill+0x0/0x108) from [] (tcp_sendmsg+0x654/0xd1c) r6:00000520 r5:c277bae0 r4:c68f37c0 [] (tcp_sendmsg+0x0/0xd1c) from [] (inet_sendmsg+0x64/0x70) FWIW I had OOMs with the exact same backtrace on kirkwood platform (512MB RAM), but sorry I don't have the full dump anymore. I found a slow leaking process, and since I fixed that leak I now have uptime better than 7 days, *but* there was definitely some memory left when the OOM happened, so it appears to be related to fragmentation. >>From what I recall, clearing the page cache helped making the box live a little bit longer. Does it make sense or should alloc_pages() discard its content when trying to satisfy high order allocations ? -- Maxime