From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail190.messagelabs.com (mail190.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39E916B0012 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 19:54:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-ew0-f41.google.com (mail-ew0-f41.google.com [209.85.215.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp1.linux-foundation.org (8.14.2/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id p3RNsNPd025954 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:54:25 -0700 Received: by ewy9 with SMTP id 9so963045ewy.14 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:54:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20110425214933.GO2468@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20110426081904.0d2b1494@pluto.restena.lu> <20110426112756.GF4308@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20110426183859.6ff6279b@neptune.home> <20110426190918.01660ccf@neptune.home> <20110427081501.5ba28155@pluto.restena.lu> <20110427204139.1b0ea23b@neptune.home> <20110427222727.GU2135@linux.vnet.ibm.com> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:46:16 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 2.6.39-rc4+: Kernel leaking memory during FS scanning, regression? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bruno_Pr=E9mont?= , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Mike Frysinger , KOSAKI Motohiro , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, "Paul E. McKenney" , Pekka Enberg On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > We _know_ it didn't run continuously for 950ms. That number is totally > made up. There's not enough work for it to run that long, but more > importantly, the thread has zero CPU time. There is _zero_ reason to > believe that it runs for long periods. Hmm. But it might certainly have run for a _total_ of 950ms. Since that's just under a second, we wouldn't see it in the "ps" output. Where is rt_time cleared? I see that subtract in do_sched_rt_period_timer(), but judging by the caller that is only called for some timer overrun case (I didn't look at what the definition of such an overrun is, though). Shouldn't rt_time be cleared when the task goes to sleep voluntarily? What am I missing? Linus -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org