Memory leak in 3.17.rc6.g09bba1?
I am running a command:
perf top -a -g -e skb:kfree_skb
on a laptop running a 3.18.0-rc2+ kernel from davem's net-next tree. While that is running I hit the system as the target of a netperf TCP_CC test (ie netserver is running on the system where perf is running, and netperf is run on another system, pointing at the first). I then expand the kfree_skb() line and the sk_stream_kill_queues and tcp_rcv_state_process lines "within" that expansion.
If I watch with plain "top" in another window I can see the RES value for the perf process steadily increasing and also its CPU utlization. The latter finally peaks at 100% (this is a core 2 duo laptop).
After about 1800 seconds of being the target of a netperf TCP_CC test the RES value for the perf utility is over 1G.
If I wait long enough, perf will finally segfault.
Is this a known issue? If I should file a more formal bug report somewhere let me know.
happy benchmarking,
rick jones
raj@raj-8510w:~$ net-next/tools/perf/perf --version perf version 3.17.rc6.g09bba1
netperf -t tcp_cc -H <perfsystem> -l 3600
might need to repeat it a few times to get the segfault?
Em Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 05:28:15PM -0800, Rick Jones escreveu:
Quoted 15 lines
I am running a command:
perf top -a -g -e skb:kfree_skb
on a laptop running a 3.18.0-rc2+ kernel from davem's net-next tree. While that is running I hit the system as the target of a netperf
TCP_CCtest (ie netserver is running on the system where perf is running, and netperf is run on another system, pointing at the first). I then expand thekfree_skb()line and thesk_stream_kill_queuesandtcp_rcv_state_processlines "within" that expansion.If I watch with plain "top" in another window I can see the RES value for the perf process steadily increasing and also its CPU utlization. The latter finally peaks at 100% (this is a core 2 duo laptop).
Quoted 7 lines
After about 1800 seconds of being the target of a netperf
TCP_CCtest the RES value for the perf utility is over 1G.If I wait long enough, perf will finally segfault.
Is this a known issue? If I should file a more formal bug report somewhere let me know.
Thanks for reporting the leak, I'll try to reproduce it here and see if I can fix it.
It should not leak memory, and we know it needs to constrain its use doing some garbage collecting, and it _definetely_ should not segfault.
It is definetely a usecase we want to support 8-)
- Arnaldo
Quoted 14 lines
happy benchmarking,
rick jones
raj@raj-8510w:~$ net-next/tools/perf/perf --version perf version 3.17.rc6.g09bba1netperf -t
tcp_cc-H <perfsystem> -l 3600might need to repeat it a few times to get the segfault?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-perf-users" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html