From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AF4BC4360C for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 07:36:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3270C20679 for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 07:36:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729374AbfI3Hgb convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Sep 2019 03:36:31 -0400 Received: from albireo.enyo.de ([37.24.231.21]:47414 "EHLO albireo.enyo.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725940AbfI3Hgb (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Sep 2019 03:36:31 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 342 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 03:36:30 EDT Received: from [172.17.203.2] (helo=deneb.enyo.de) by albireo.enyo.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1iEq8t-00006v-36; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 07:30:47 +0000 Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1iEq6d-0000Sy-Fv; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 09:28:27 +0200 From: Florian Weimer To: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: xfs_inode not reclaimed/memory leak on 5.2.16 Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 09:28:27 +0200 Message-ID: <87pnji8cpw.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Simply running “du -hc” on a large directory tree causes du to be killed because of kernel paging request failure in the XFS code. I ran slabtop, and it showed tons of xfs_inode objects. The system was rather unhappy after that, so I wasn't able to capture much more information. Is this a known issue on Linux 5.2? I don't see it with kernel 5.0.20. Those are plain upstream kernels built for x86-64, with no unusual config options (that I know of).