Re: Possible memory leak in 6.17.7

Mal Haak
2025-12-16T11:55:35Z

On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 17:09:18 +1000
Mal Haak <malcolm@haak.id.au> wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 15:00:43 +0800 (CST)
> "David Wang" <00107082@163.com> wrote:
>
> > At 2025-12-16 09:26:47, "Mal Haak" <malcolm@haak.id.au> wrote:
> > >On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 19:42:56 +0000
> > >Viacheslav Dubeyko <Slava.Dubeyko@ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Mal,
> > >>
> > ><SNIP>
> > >>
> > >> Thanks a lot for reporting the issue. Finally, I can see the
> > >> discussion in email list. :) Are you working on the patch with
> > >> the fix? Should we wait for the fix or I need to start the issue
> > >> reproduction and investigation? I am simply trying to avoid
> > >> patches collision and, also, I have multiple other issues for
> > >> the fix in CephFS kernel client. :)
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Slava.
> > >
> > >Hello,
> > >
> > >Unfortunately creating a patch is just outside my comfort zone,
> > >I've lived too long in Lustre land.
> >
> > Hi, just out of curiosity, have you narrowed down the caller of
> > __filemap_get_folio causing the memory problem? Or do you have
> > trouble applying the debug patch for memory allocation profiling?
> >
> > David
> >
> Hi David,
>
> I hadn't yet as I did test XFS and NFS to see if it replicated the
> behaviour and it did not.
>
> But actually this could speed things up considerably. I will do that
> now and see what I get.
>
> Thanks
>
> Mal
>
I did just give it a blast.

Unfortunately it returned exactly what I expected, that is the calls
are all coming from netfs.

Which makes sense for cephfs.

# sort -g /proc/allocinfo|tail|numfmt --to=iec
10M 2541 drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c:1597 [zram]
func:zram_meta_alloc 12M 3001 mm/execmem.c:41 func:execmem_vmalloc
12M 3605 kernel/fork.c:311 func:alloc_thread_stack_node
16M 992 mm/slub.c:3061 func:alloc_slab_page
20M 35544 lib/xarray.c:378 func:xas_alloc
31M 7704 mm/memory.c:1192 func:folio_prealloc
69M 17562 mm/memory.c:1190 func:folio_prealloc
104M 8212 mm/slub.c:3059 func:alloc_slab_page
124M 30075 mm/readahead.c:189 func:ractl_alloc_folio
2.6G 661392 fs/netfs/buffered_read.c:635 [netfs]
func:netfs_write_begin

So, unfortunately it doesn't reveal the true source. But was worth a
shot! So thanks again

Mal

> > >
> > >I've have been trying to narrow down a consistent reproducer that's
> > >as fast as my production workload. (It crashes a 32GB VM in 2hrs)
> > >And I haven't got it quite as fast. I think the dd workload is too
> > >well behaved.
> > >
> > >I can confirm the issue appeared in the major patch set that was
> > >applied as part of the 6.15 kernel. So during the more complete
> > >pages to folios switch and that nothing has changed in the bug
> > >behaviour since then. I did have a look at all the diffs from 6.14
> > >to 6.18 on addr.c and didn't see any changes post 6.15 that looked
> > >like they would impact the bug behavior.
> > >
> > >Again, I'm not super familiar with the CephFS code but to hazard a
> > >guess, but I think that the web download workload triggers things
> > >faster suggests that unaligned writes might make things worse. But
> > >again, I'm not 100% sure. I can't find a reproducer as fast as
> > >downloading a dataset. Rsync of lots and lots of tiny files is a
> > >tad faster than the dd case.
> > >
> > >I did see some changes in ceph_check_page_before_write where the
> > >previous code unlocked pages and then continued where as the
> > >changed folio code just returns ENODATA and doesn't unlock
> > >anything with most of the rest of the logic unchanged. This might
> > >be perfectly fine, but in my, admittedly limited, reading of the
> > >code I couldn't figure out where anything that was locked prior to
> > >this being called would get unlocked like it did prior to the
> > >change. Again, I could be miles off here and one of the bulk
> > >reclaim/unlock passes that was added might be cleaning this up
> > >correctly or some other functional change might take care of this,
> > >but it looks to be potentially in the code path I'm excising and
> > >it has had some unlock logic changed.
> > >
> > >I've spent most of my time trying to find a solid quick reproducer.
> > >Not that it takes long to start leaking folios, but I wanted
> > >something that aggressively triggered it so a small vm would oom
> > >quickly and when combined with crash_on_oom it could potentially be
> > >used for regression testing by way of "did vm crash?".
> > >
> > >I'm not sure if it will super help, but I'll provide what details I
> > >can about the actual workload that really sets it off. It's a
> > >python based tool for downloading datasets. Datasets are split
> > >into N chunks and the tool downloads them in parallel 100 at a
> > >time until all N chunks are down. The compressed dataset is then
> > >unpacked and reassembled for use with workloads.
> > >
> > >This is replicating a common home folder usecase in HPC. CephFS is
> > >very attractive for home folders due to it's "NFS-like" utility and
> > >performance. And many tools use a similar method for fetching large
> > >datasets. Tools are frequently written in python or go.
> > >
> > >None of my customers have hit this yet, not have any enterprise
> > >customers as none have moved to a new enough kernel yet due to slow
> > >upgrade cycles. Even Proxmox have only just started testing on a
> > >kernel version > 6.14.
> > >
> > >I'm more than happy to help however I can with testing. I can run
> > >instrumented kernels or test patches or whatever you need. I am
> > >sorry I haven't been able to produce a super clean, fast reproducer
> > >(my test cluster at home is all spinners and only 500TB usable).
> > >But I figured I needed to get the word out asap as distros and soon
> > >customers are going to be moving past 6.12-6.14 kernels as the 5-7
> > >year update cycle marches on. Especially those wanting to take full
> > >advantage of CacheFS and encryption functionality.
> > >
> > >Again thanks for looking at this and do reach out if I can help in
> > >anyway. I am in the ceph slack if it's faster to reach out that
> > >way.
> > >
> > >Regards
> > >
> > >Mal Haak
>