Bug 119581 - IPv6 Netlink problem, memory leak and "Cannot allocate memory" errors
Summary: IPv6 Netlink problem, memory leak and "Cannot allocate memory" errors
Status: RESOLVED CODE_FIX
Alias: None
Product: Networking
Classification: Unclassified
Component: IPV6 (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: P1 normal
Assignee: Hideaki YOSHIFUJI
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2016-06-03 11:23 UTC by Petr Novopashenniy
Modified: 2016-07-14 10:33 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Kernel Version: 4.4.11
Tree: Mainline
Regression: No


Attachments
Fix mem leak in rt6i_pcpu (1.27 KB, patch)
2016-07-05 05:35 UTC, Martin KaFai Lau
Details | Diff

Description Petr Novopashenniy 2016-06-03 11:23:49 UTC
This is my production network:

IPv6-primary-uplink<-->RouterA<-->RouterB<-->IPv6-backup-uplink

I run quagga 0.99.24.1, bgpd, ospf6d and zebra on router A.
All uplinks send me IPv6 full view (~30000 routes).
Routes from primary uplink has 100 BGP localpref, from backup - 90.
RouterA (amd64) run 4.4.11 kernel.

For example, when primary uplink flaps, I see mulitple (~600) messages from zebra:
netlink-cmd error: Cannot allocate memory, type=RTM_NEWROUTE(24), seq=5603215, pid=0

And after this RouterA has incomplete/incorrect ipv6 kernel routing table.

I tried to reproduce the bug on test linux box.

I setup quagga (bgpd and zebra), and send full IPv6 view to this box (via IPv4 multiprotocol BGP session).

This is ip -6 addr output for two interfaces (eth1 has real working global ipv6 ip, and eth5 has "the first available", not globaly connected ipv6 address (just ip from different subnet and lower link is up))":

2: eth1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qlen 1000
    inet6 2001:b08:2:280::4:2/120 scope global 
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
    inet6 fe80::25b:70ff:fe00:752a/64 scope link 
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
3: eth5: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qlen 1000
    inet6 2001:b08:8:280::4:2/120 scope global 
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
    inet6 fe80::25b:70ff:fe00:752b/64 scope link 
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever

Routing table:

2001:b08:2:280::4:0/120 dev eth1  proto kernel  metric 256  pref medium
2001:b08:8:280::4:0/120 dev eth5  proto kernel  metric 256  pref medium
fe80::/64 dev eth1  proto kernel  metric 256  pref medium
fe80::/64 dev eth5  proto kernel  metric 256  pref medium
ff00::/8 dev eth1  metric 256  pref medium
ff00::/8 dev eth5  metric 256  pref medium

Quagga BGP scan interval is 5 seconds.

And I run this simple script:
#
while true ; do
ip -6 route add 2000::/3 via 2001:b08:2:280::4:1 dev eth1
sleep 3
ip -6 route del 2000::/3 via 2001:b08:2:280::4:1 dev eth1
ip -6 route add 2000::/3 via 2001:b08:8:280::4:4 dev eth5
sleep 3
ip -6 route del 2000::/3 via 2001:b08:8:280::4:4 dev eth5
done
#
And quagga simple switch nexthop for all ~30000 IPv6 routes from 2001:b08:2:280::4:1 to 2001:b08:8:280::4:4 and back.

In zebra.log, I sometimes see "netlink-cmd error: Cannot allocate memory, type=RTM_NEWROUTE" errors (~20-30 records for one time), and after ~10 hours 4G RAM ended.

If I run, for example, on my RouterA or on my test linux box 4.1.13 kernel, there no such problem. No memory leak, no "Cannot allocate memory" messages.
Comment 1 hannes 2016-06-03 12:17:50 UTC
Are you saying that you could deplete your whole memory in the box? Did it recover if you killed zebra or you flushed the routing tables? Is it a permanent error or a temporary error, I was not completely sure from your description.
Comment 2 Petr Novopashenniy 2016-06-03 12:37:04 UTC
Yes, I can deplete whole memory in the box (zebra proccess in `D` state and not accessible from the telnet interface, 300-400 MB swap used). Memory is not released if I kill zebra/bgpd or if I flush ipv6 routing table. Only zebra/bgpd memory release after kill. This is a permanent error.
Comment 3 hannes 2016-06-03 14:59:08 UTC
Thanks, Petr,

Trying to reproduce. Would it be possible for you to test a 4.6.1 kernel or even 4.7-rc1 one if you don't mind?

In the mean time I look how I can reproduce that in the meantime.

Maybe can you also paste a cat /proc/slabinfo after booting with kernel command line slab_nomerge?

That would help a lot, thanks!
Comment 4 Martin KaFai Lau 2016-06-03 16:50:39 UTC
Petr, can you also do 'cat /proc/net/rt6_stats >> rt6_stats.log' in your script?  The file has the number of routing entries in it.  I am interested to see if the numbers in the rt6_stats file increase gradually.

Thanks!
Comment 5 Martin KaFai Lau 2016-06-03 22:41:27 UTC
A quick update.  I cannot reproduce with a simple script keeps adding and deleting thousands of routes in a loop after running for a few hours.  I will try harder.
Comment 6 hannes 2016-06-04 00:19:35 UTC
Having a zebra daemon running with 31'000 static routes while switching the nexthop for those routes between two interfaces doesn't show any kind of memory depletion for me. I will leave the script running over the night.

Anything special in quagga what could trigger this?
Comment 7 hannes 2016-06-04 00:48:02 UTC
Does this router at the same time handle forwarding traffic?
Comment 8 hannes 2016-06-04 10:37:52 UTC
Okay, I could reproduce it:

The trace looks somehow random, it happend during pcpu_balance.

[13371.558844]  [<ffffffff8144ba13>] dump_stack+0x85/0xc2
[13371.558848]  [<ffffffff81289ca4>] dump_header+0x5b/0x227
[13371.558852]  [<ffffffff8110d74d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
[13371.558854]  [<ffffffff811f16a0>] oom_kill_process+0x200/0x3e0
[13371.558855]  [<ffffffff811f1aea>] out_of_memory+0x21a/0x5c0
[13371.558856]  [<ffffffff811f1ba8>] ? out_of_memory+0x2d8/0x5c0
[13371.558858]  [<ffffffff811f8e9b>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0xd5b/0xec0
[13371.558860]  [<ffffffff81219498>] pcpu_populate_chunk+0xc8/0x3b0
[13371.558861]  [<ffffffff8121a389>] pcpu_balance_workfn+0x559/0x5a0
[13371.558864]  [<ffffffff810d0192>] ? process_one_work+0x1a2/0x720
[13371.558865]  [<ffffffff810d021c>] process_one_work+0x22c/0x720
[13371.558866]  [<ffffffff810d0192>] ? process_one_work+0x1a2/0x720
[13371.558868]  [<ffffffff810d075e>] worker_thread+0x4e/0x490
[13371.558869]  [<ffffffff810d0710>] ? process_one_work+0x720/0x720
[13371.558870]  [<ffffffff810d0710>] ? process_one_work+0x720/0x720
[13371.558872]  [<ffffffff810d7a61>] kthread+0x101/0x120
[13371.558873]  [<ffffffff8110d6b9>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x129/0x1b0
[13371.558874]  [<ffffffff810d7960>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x250/0x250
[13371.558878]  [<ffffffff818b61df>] ret_from_fork+0x3f/0x70
[13371.558879]  [<ffffffff810d7960>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x250/0x250
Comment 9 Daniel Borkmann 2016-06-04 12:50:29 UTC
(In reply to hannes from comment #8)
> Okay, I could reproduce it:
> 
> The trace looks somehow random, it happend during pcpu_balance.
> 
> [13371.558844]  [<ffffffff8144ba13>] dump_stack+0x85/0xc2
> [13371.558848]  [<ffffffff81289ca4>] dump_header+0x5b/0x227
> [13371.558852]  [<ffffffff8110d74d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
> [13371.558854]  [<ffffffff811f16a0>] oom_kill_process+0x200/0x3e0
> [13371.558855]  [<ffffffff811f1aea>] out_of_memory+0x21a/0x5c0
> [13371.558856]  [<ffffffff811f1ba8>] ? out_of_memory+0x2d8/0x5c0
> [13371.558858]  [<ffffffff811f8e9b>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0xd5b/0xec0
> [13371.558860]  [<ffffffff81219498>] pcpu_populate_chunk+0xc8/0x3b0
> [13371.558861]  [<ffffffff8121a389>] pcpu_balance_workfn+0x559/0x5a0
> [13371.558864]  [<ffffffff810d0192>] ? process_one_work+0x1a2/0x720
> [13371.558865]  [<ffffffff810d021c>] process_one_work+0x22c/0x720
> [13371.558866]  [<ffffffff810d0192>] ? process_one_work+0x1a2/0x720
> [13371.558868]  [<ffffffff810d075e>] worker_thread+0x4e/0x490
> [13371.558869]  [<ffffffff810d0710>] ? process_one_work+0x720/0x720
> [13371.558870]  [<ffffffff810d0710>] ? process_one_work+0x720/0x720
> [13371.558872]  [<ffffffff810d7a61>] kthread+0x101/0x120
> [13371.558873]  [<ffffffff8110d6b9>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x129/0x1b0
> [13371.558874]  [<ffffffff810d7960>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x250/0x250
> [13371.558878]  [<ffffffff818b61df>] ret_from_fork+0x3f/0x70
> [13371.558879]  [<ffffffff810d7960>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x250/0x250

Maybe this is related to the recent use-after-free in pcpu subsystem?

First two, they are not yet upstream:

https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/tj/percpu.git/log/?h=for-4.7-fixes
Comment 10 Daniel Borkmann 2016-06-04 12:57:59 UTC
(In reply to Daniel Borkmann from comment #9)
> (In reply to hannes from comment #8)
> > Okay, I could reproduce it:
> > 
> > The trace looks somehow random, it happend during pcpu_balance.
> > 
> > [13371.558844]  [<ffffffff8144ba13>] dump_stack+0x85/0xc2
> > [13371.558848]  [<ffffffff81289ca4>] dump_header+0x5b/0x227
> > [13371.558852]  [<ffffffff8110d74d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
> > [13371.558854]  [<ffffffff811f16a0>] oom_kill_process+0x200/0x3e0
> > [13371.558855]  [<ffffffff811f1aea>] out_of_memory+0x21a/0x5c0
> > [13371.558856]  [<ffffffff811f1ba8>] ? out_of_memory+0x2d8/0x5c0
> > [13371.558858]  [<ffffffff811f8e9b>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0xd5b/0xec0
> > [13371.558860]  [<ffffffff81219498>] pcpu_populate_chunk+0xc8/0x3b0
> > [13371.558861]  [<ffffffff8121a389>] pcpu_balance_workfn+0x559/0x5a0
> > [13371.558864]  [<ffffffff810d0192>] ? process_one_work+0x1a2/0x720
> > [13371.558865]  [<ffffffff810d021c>] process_one_work+0x22c/0x720
> > [13371.558866]  [<ffffffff810d0192>] ? process_one_work+0x1a2/0x720
> > [13371.558868]  [<ffffffff810d075e>] worker_thread+0x4e/0x490
> > [13371.558869]  [<ffffffff810d0710>] ? process_one_work+0x720/0x720
> > [13371.558870]  [<ffffffff810d0710>] ? process_one_work+0x720/0x720
> > [13371.558872]  [<ffffffff810d7a61>] kthread+0x101/0x120
> > [13371.558873]  [<ffffffff8110d6b9>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x129/0x1b0
> > [13371.558874]  [<ffffffff810d7960>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x250/0x250
> > [13371.558878]  [<ffffffff818b61df>] ret_from_fork+0x3f/0x70
> > [13371.558879]  [<ffffffff810d7960>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x250/0x250
> 
> Maybe this is related to the recent use-after-free in pcpu subsystem?
> 
> First two, they are not yet upstream:
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/tj/percpu.git/log/?h=for-4.7-
> fixes

This was, by the way, triggered through KASAN from eBPF side when large pcpu array maps were allocated and freed again. In those maps each slot has a pcpu entry, so one pcpu alloc per entry, thus constantly stressing the pcpu allocator. Maybe here, situation might be similar with regards to pcpu allocations?
Comment 11 hannes 2016-06-04 14:22:10 UTC
I don't think so. It looks more like a memory leak and not like a use-after-free.
Comment 12 Petr Novopashenniy 2016-06-06 11:17:25 UTC
(In reply to Martin KaFai Lau from comment #4)
> Petr, can you also do 'cat /proc/net/rt6_stats >> rt6_stats.log' in your
> script?  The file has the number of routing entries in it.  I am interested
> to see if the numbers in the rt6_stats file increase gradually.
> 
> Thanks!

Yes, after ~400 seconds of run (one cat for loop):
http://ftp.neva.ru/rt6_stats.log
It's enough?
Comment 13 Petr Novopashenniy 2016-06-06 11:21:56 UTC
(In reply to hannes from comment #7)
> Does this router at the same time handle forwarding traffic?

RouterA (in my example) really forward traffic, my test box - not forward.
Comment 14 hannes 2016-06-06 11:54:50 UTC
Hi Petr,

thanks for the log. Seems like we cannot pin down the problem with that only. Can you also provide a full splash (output of dmesg on OOM).

Thanks,
Hannes
Comment 15 Petr Novopashenniy 2016-06-06 12:40:39 UTC
(In reply to hannes from comment #14)
> Hi Petr,
> 
> thanks for the log. Seems like we cannot pin down the problem with that
> only. Can you also provide a full splash (output of dmesg on OOM).
> 
> Thanks,
> Hannes

Ok, now I test 4.7.0-rc2 without swap space and limit RAM to 1024M (via mem=1024M kernel cmd). And wait OOM.
Comment 16 Petr Novopashenniy 2016-06-06 13:02:25 UTC
(In reply to hannes from comment #14)
> Hi Petr,
> 
> thanks for the log. Seems like we cannot pin down the problem with that
> only. Can you also provide a full splash (output of dmesg on OOM).
> 
> Thanks,
> Hannes

Before OOM the system is very slow:
# time uptime
 15:47:43 up 16 min,  2 users,  load average: 4.57, 2.13, 0.83

real    0m14.206s
user    0m0.006s
sys     0m0.241s
#

And this is dmesg after OOM:
http://ftp.neva.ru/Tests/dmesg_aftrer_OOM

/proc/slabinfo after boot with slab_nomerge and after BGP session established:
http://ftp.neva.ru/Tests/slab_after_boot1.txt

/proc/slabinfo after OOM:
http://ftp.neva.ru/Tests/slab1.txt

PS:
Also, I have IPv4 full view on this box, but test only IPv6.
Comment 17 Petr Novopashenniy 2016-06-08 15:20:17 UTC
At first glance, this bug added in 4.2.0-rc8. 4.2.0-rc7 run without memory leak and "Cannot allocate memory" errors.
Comment 18 hannes 2016-06-08 15:28:24 UTC
Hi Petr,

thank you, this is very viable information. Did you have a chance to check a very current kernel, too?

I couldn't reproduce it with the recent -rc kernel yesterday, the test is still running. Do we see the same results?

Thanks,
Hannes
Comment 19 Petr Novopashenniy 2016-06-09 09:22:14 UTC
Hi Hannes!

My last test was on latest rc kernel (4.7.0-rc2, with kernel config http://ftp.neva.ru/Tests/config-4.7.0-rc2):

This is dmesg output
http://ftp.neva.ru/Tests/dmesg_aftrer_OOM

Petr
Comment 20 Petr Novopashenniy 2016-06-20 11:23:56 UTC
In 4.7-rc4 this bug is still exist.
Comment 21 Petr Novopashenniy 2016-07-01 13:15:25 UTC
(In reply to Martin KaFai Lau from comment #5)
> A quick update.  I cannot reproduce with a simple script keeps adding and
> deleting thousands of routes in a loop after running for a few hours.  I
> will try harder.

You can simple add and delete one static route in a loop, like this (..4:1 is my default gw):
while true ; do
ip -6 route add 2001:b09::/32 via 2001:b08:2:280::4:1 dev eth0
ip -6 route del 2001:b09::/32 via 2001:b08:2:280::4:1 dev eth0
done

and wait 1-2 or more days (if you use C program with same functional, you can save your time).

With X86_64 kernel you lose all memory (and sometimes see "RTNETLINK answers: Cannot allocate memory" before you run out of memory).

With X86 32 bit kernel you lose a little memory, but you can see ENOMEM and ENOBUFS errors:

Before test:
# free                                          
              total        used        free      shared  buff/cache   available
Mem:        2048696       51432     1751952        5496      245312     1835492
Swap:       4120636           0     4120636                                    

After test:
# free
              total        used        free      shared  buff/cache   available
Mem:        2048696      125056     1674736        5496      248904     1761208
Swap:       4120636           0     4120636

# ip -6 route add 2000:b08:3::/48 via 2001:B08:2:100::1 dev eth0
RTNETLINK answers: Cannot allocate memory
# ip route add 10.0.0.0/24 via 195.208.113.126 dev eth0
RTNETLINK answers: No buffer space available
#

--pety
Comment 22 Martin KaFai Lau 2016-07-02 01:08:34 UTC
Hi Petr,

ip -6 r add and del was the first test I did before going into zebra/quagga.  I did add a few thousands and then del a few thousands in a loop with >1 threads but cannot reprod after a few days.  I can retry with one add and one del exactly as you do again.

btw, do you have a chance to capture the slabinfo in your latest test?

Thanks,
-- Martin
Comment 23 Petr Novopashenniy 2016-07-04 11:15:20 UTC
(In reply to Martin KaFai Lau from comment #22)
> Hi Petr,
> 
> ip -6 r add and del was the first test I did before going into zebra/quagga.
> I did add a few thousands and then del a few thousands in a loop with >1
> threads but cannot reprod after a few days.  I can retry with one add and
> one del exactly as you do again.
> 
> btw, do you have a chance to capture the slabinfo in your latest test?
> 
> Thanks,
> -- Martin

Hi, Martin!

Yes, this is 4.4.13 32 bit kernel, slabinfo after test:
http://ftp.neva.ru/Tests/slab_bereza1.txt

Can you give to me your kernel version and kernel config?

(I reproduce this bug on 4.4.* and 4.7rc* (but not test 4.5.* and 4.6.*) with simple add and remove static route, without use quagga/zebra).

If you're interested, I can give ssh access to my x86_64 test box.

--pety
Comment 24 hannes 2016-07-04 12:52:42 UTC
Hi Pter,

your slabinfo indicates you are using ~100MB of slab, that shouldn't cause a OOM in any case.

How many CPU's does your system have? Is this a non-SMP kernel build? How many memory does the system have?

Thanks,
Hannes
Comment 25 hannes 2016-07-04 13:00:10 UTC
And also please a dump of /proc/vmallocinfo after the oom situation happend. Thanks!
Comment 26 Petr Novopashenniy 2016-07-04 13:16:43 UTC
(In reply to hannes from comment #24)
> Hi Pter,
> 
> your slabinfo indicates you are using ~100MB of slab, that shouldn't cause a
> OOM in any case.
> 
> How many CPU's does your system have? Is this a non-SMP kernel build? How
> many memory does the system have?
> 
> Thanks,
> Hannes

Hi!

Yes, on 32 bit system I have no OOM, but ENOMEM and ENOBUFS errors with netlink:
# ip -6 route add 2000:b08:3::/48 via 2001:B08:2:100::1 dev eth0
RTNETLINK answers: Cannot allocate memory
# ip route add 10.0.0.0/24 via 195.208.113.126 dev eth0
RTNETLINK answers: No buffer space available
#

I have OOM only on X86_64 (64 bit) systems.

>
> How many CPU's does your system have? Is this a non-SMP kernel build? How
> many memory does the system have?

1. x86 (32 bit) system: SMP kernel, "Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 4300  @ 1.80GHz" (2 cores), 2GB RAM

2. x86_64 system (64 bit): SMP kernel, "Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-3317U CPU @ 1.70GHz" (4 cores) , 4G RAM.

3. x86_64 system (64 bit): SMP kernel, "Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5607 @ 2.27GHz" (8 cores), 48G RAM.
Comment 27 Petr Novopashenniy 2016-07-04 13:41:08 UTC
(In reply to hannes from comment #25)
> And also please a dump of /proc/vmallocinfo after the oom situation happend.
> Thanks!

http://ftp.neva.ru/Tests/vmallocinfo1.txt

--pety
Comment 28 Petr Novopashenniy 2016-07-04 14:06:00 UTC
(In reply to Petr Novopashenniy from comment #27)
> (In reply to hannes from comment #25)
> > And also please a dump of /proc/vmallocinfo after the oom situation
> happend.
> > Thanks!
> 
> http://ftp.neva.ru/Tests/vmallocinfo1.txt
> 
Clarification:
In this case, for more quick testing, I set memory size to only 1G.

--pety
Comment 29 Petr Novopashenniy 2016-07-04 14:57:54 UTC
(In reply to hannes from comment #25)
> And also please a dump of /proc/vmallocinfo after the oom situation happend.
> Thanks!

This is vmallocinfo diff example when test is running (20-30 seconds between different vmallocinfo):

53d52
< 0xffffc90000b21000-0xffffc90000b62000  266240 pcpu_mem_zalloc+0x2b/0x80 pages=64 vmalloc
58a58,60
> 0xffffc90001278000-0xffffc900012f9000  528384 pcpu_mem_zalloc+0x2b/0x80
> pages=128 vmalloc
> 0xffffc9000135b000-0xffffc900013dc000  528384 pcpu_mem_zalloc+0x2b/0x80
> pages=128 vmalloc
> 0xffffc90001458000-0xffffc900014d9000  528384 pcpu_mem_zalloc+0x2b/0x80
> pages=128 vmalloc
62a65
> 0xffffc9000176e000-0xffffc900017ef000  528384 pcpu_mem_zalloc+0x2b/0x80
> pages=128 vmalloc
65a69
> 0xffffc90001b44000-0xffffc90001bc5000  528384 pcpu_mem_zalloc+0x2b/0x80
> pages=128 vmalloc
68a73
> 0xffffc90001f44000-0xffffc90001fc5000  528384 pcpu_mem_zalloc+0x2b/0x80
> pages=128 vmalloc
71a77
> 0xffffc90002644000-0xffffc90002685000  266240 pcpu_mem_zalloc+0x2b/0x80
> pages=64 vmalloc
72a79
> 0xffffc90002741000-0xffffc900027c2000  528384 pcpu_mem_zalloc+0x2b/0x80
> pages=128 vmalloc
109a117,123
> 0xffffe8fff9600000-0xffffe8fff9800000 2097152 pcpu_get_vm_areas+0x0/0x540
> vmalloc
> 0xffffe8fff9800000-0xffffe8fff9a00000 2097152 pcpu_get_vm_areas+0x0/0x540
> vmalloc
> 0xffffe8fff9a00000-0xffffe8fff9c00000 2097152 pcpu_get_vm_areas+0x0/0x540
> vmalloc
> 0xffffe8fff9c00000-0xffffe8fff9e00000 2097152 pcpu_get_vm_areas+0x0/0x540
> vmalloc
> 0xffffe8fff9e00000-0xffffe8fffa000000 2097152 pcpu_get_vm_areas+0x0/0x540
> vmalloc
> 0xffffe8fffa000000-0xffffe8fffa200000 2097152 pcpu_get_vm_areas+0x0/0x540
> vmalloc
> 0xffffe8fffa200000-0xffffe8fffa400000 2097152 pcpu_get_vm_areas+0x0/0x540
> vmalloc
Comment 30 hannes 2016-07-04 15:41:36 UTC
Hmm could be a fragmentation issue. Thanks, I try to reproduce also with limiting the memory.
Comment 31 Martin KaFai Lau 2016-07-05 05:35:25 UTC
Created attachment 222071 [details]
Fix mem leak in rt6i_pcpu

Hi Petr,

Thanks for the info.  It is very helpful.

I can reproduce what you have seen in /proc/vmallocinfo regarding to the pcpu entries.

I have attached a patch which I see good result.  After this patch, I don't see increasing consumption from pcpu in /proc/vmallocinfo.   It is against the current net-next branch (4.7.0-rc5) and it is also applicable to the 4.4.y branch.

Can you give this patch a try?

Thanks,
-- Martin
Comment 32 Petr Novopashenniy 2016-07-05 13:05:51 UTC
(In reply to Martin KaFai Lau from comment #31)
> Created attachment 222071 [details]
> Fix mem leak in rt6i_pcpu
> 
> Hi Petr,
> 
> Thanks for the info.  It is very helpful.
> 
> I can reproduce what you have seen in /proc/vmallocinfo regarding to the
> pcpu entries.
> 
> I have attached a patch which I see good result.  After this patch, I don't
> see increasing consumption from pcpu in /proc/vmallocinfo.   It is against
> the current net-next branch (4.7.0-rc5) and it is also applicable to the
> 4.4.y branch.
> 
> Can you give this patch a try?
> 
> Thanks,
> -- Martin

Good day!

I test 4.4.14 (32bit and 64bit version) and 4.7-rc6 with this patch, looks like all works fine, thank you very much, Martin!

--pety

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.