SMP-related kernel memory leak

SMP-related kernel memory leak

[Bart Van Assche]

Hello,

I noticed that the amount of memory used by the Linux kernel steadily
increases over time on SMP systems (x86 architecture, 32-bit kernel).
This problem disappears when I add maxcpus=1 to the kernel command
line. I have observed this behavior both on the 2.6.22.18 and 2.6.24.2
kernels. Did anyone notice anything similar ?

See also: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9991

Bart Van Assche.

Re: SMP-related kernel memory leak

[Oliver Pinter]

Helló!

this patch fixed them http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/18/405 ?

On 2/19/08, Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I noticed that the amount of memory used by the Linux kernel steadily
> increases over time on SMP systems (x86 architecture, 32-bit kernel).
> This problem disappears when I add maxcpus=1 to the kernel command
> line. I have observed this behavior both on the 2.6.22.18 and 2.6.24.2
> kernels. Did anyone notice anything similar ?
>
> See also: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9991
>
> Bart Van Assche.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>


-- 
Thanks,
Oliver

Re: SMP-related kernel memory leak

[Bart Van Assche]

On Feb 19, 2008 7:18 PM, Oliver Pinter <oliver.pntr@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/19/08, Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I noticed that the amount of memory used by the Linux kernel steadily
> > increases over time on SMP systems (x86 architecture, 32-bit kernel).
> > This problem disappears when I add maxcpus=1 to the kernel command
> > line. I have observed this behavior both on the 2.6.22.18 and 2.6.24.2
> > kernels. Did anyone notice anything similar ?
> >
> > See also: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9991
>
> this patch fixed them http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/18/405 ?

Thanks for the hint. If I interpreted the 2.6.24 changelog correctly
this patch is already included with 2.6.24 ? The problem still occurs
with 2.6.24.2. I am currently trying to find the minimal kernel config
which still triggers this problem. Any other hints for finding the
cause of this issue are welcome of course.

Bart Van Assche.