Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 5 Mar 2008 23:11:26 +0100 (CET) | From | Christian Kujau <> | Subject | Re: 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).
| |