lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.6.25-rc3: 34TB vmalloc total -- overflow in /proc/meminfo?
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> I don't see what Pavel's issue is with this: it's simply a fact that
> with a 64-bit kernel, we've lots of virtual address space to spare
> for vmalloc. What would be surprising is for VmallocUsed to get up
> as high as that.

OK, thanks for the clarification.

> Completely different and much more interesting.

Well, if it's "interesting"...here are some more details from the box:

http://nerdbynature.de/bits/2.6.19.2/

> Unlikely. Offhand I'm not quite sure that's impossible, but it's far
> more likely that we've a kernel bug and vm_committed_space has wrapped
> negative.

Huh. When I first saw this I thought "kernel bug" too, but then read the
documentation to Committed_AS I thought it's just userspace related...

> Ancient as your kernel is, I don't notice anything in the ChangeLogs
> since then to say we've fixed a bug of that kind since 2.6.19.
> Any idea how to reproduce this?

Well, the box is running fine and since it's a production machine I don't
intend to reboot the box very often. And since it's really an old kernel
(for lkml discussion, that is) I don't intend to debug this one further.
I really was only curious if this was userspace related (some app
overcommitting) or some kernel weirdness.

> Are you using HugePages at all?

I have:

# CONFIG_HUGETLBFS is not set
# CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE is not set

...was this, what you meant?

Thanks,
Christian.
--
BOFH excuse #340:

Well fix that in the next (upgrade, update, patch release, service pack).


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-05 23:13    [W:0.052 / U:1.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site