Re: FYI; 14.3: A discord report of Wired Memory growing to 17 GiBytes over something like 60 days; ARC shrinks to, say, 1942 MiBytes
- Reply: Darrin Smith : "Re: FYI; 14.3: A discord report of Wired Memory growing to 17 GiBytes over something like 60 days; ARC shrinks to, say, 1942 MiBytes"
- In reply to: Rick Macklem : "Re: FYI; 14.3: A discord report of Wired Memory growing to 17 GiBytes over something like 60 days; ARC shrinks to, say, 1942 MiBytes"
- Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 22:20:38 UTC
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 09:16:27 -0700 Rick Macklem <rick.macklem@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 12:37 AM Darrin Smith <beldin@beldin.org> > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 05:38:00 +0300 > > Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 05:42:55PM -0700, Rick Macklem wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 3:20 PM Rick Macklem > > > > <rick.macklem@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 12:47 AM Darrin Smith > > > > > <beldin@beldin.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 12:57:39 +0300 > > > > > > Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Start looking at differences in periodic shots of vmstat > > > > > > > -z and vmstat -m. It would not catch direct page > > > > > > > allocators. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, I hope I'm reading these outputs correctlty... > > > > > > Looking at vmstat -z I am assuming the 'size' column shows > > > > > > the size of each malloc bucket and the used indicates the > > > > > > number of buckets used? (A quick look at vmstat.c pointing > > > > > > me to memstat_get_* suggests I'm on the right track) This > > > > > > results in numbers around the right order of magnitude to > > > > > > match my memory. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have noticed with 3 samples over the last 18 hours (in > > > > > > which time it looks like about 1/2 of my memory is now > > > > > > wired, which seems a little execessive, especially > > > > > > considering ZFS is only using about 6 1/2G accoding to top: > > > > > > > > > > > > Mem: 1568M Active, 12G Inact, 656M Laundry, 36G Wired, 994M > > > > > > Buf, 12G Free ARC: 6645M Total, 3099M MFU, 2617M MRU, 768K > > > > > > Anon, 49M Header, 877M 4995M Compressed, 5803M Uncompressed, > > > > > > 1.16:1 Ratio Swap: 8192M Total, 198M Used, 7993M Free, 2% > > > > > > Inuse > > > > > > > > > > > > In the middle of this rang I was building about 1000 > > > > > > packages in poudriere so it's been busy. > > > > > > > > > > > > Interestingly the ZFS ARC size has actually dropped since 9 > > > > > > hours ago when I took the 2nd measurement (was about 15G > > > > > > then) but that was at the height of the build and suggests > > > > > > the ARC is expiring older stuff happily. > > > > > > > > > > > > So assuming the used * size is correct I saw the following > > > > > > big changes in vmstat -z: > > > > > > > > > > > > vm_page: > > > > > > > > > > > > 18 hours ago (before build): 18159063040, 25473990656 > > > > > > > > > > > > 9 hours ago (during build) : 27994304512, 29363249152 > > > > > > delta : +9835241472, +3889258496 > > > > > > > > > > > > recent sample : 14337658880, 35773743104 > > > > > > delta : -13656645632, +6410493952 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NAMEI: > > > > > > > > > > > > 18 hours ago: 2 267 478 016 > > > > > > > > > > > > 9 hours ago : 13 991 848 960 > > > > > > delta : +11 724 370 944 > > > > > > > > > > > > recent sample: 24 441 244 672 > > > > > > delta : +10 449 395 712 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > zfs_znode_cache: > > > > > > > > > > > > 18 hours ago: 370777296 > > > > > > > > > > > > 9 hours ago : 975800816 > > > > > > delta : +605023520 > > > > > > > > > > > > recent sample: 156404656 > > > > > > delta : -819396160 > > > > > > > > > > > > VNODE: > > > > > > > > > > > > 18 hours ago: 440384120 > > > > > > > > > > > > 9 hours ago : 952734200 > > > > > > delta : +512350080 > > > > > > > > > > > > recent sample: 159528160 > > > > > > delta : -793206040 > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything else comes out to smaller numbers, so I assume > > > > > > it's probably not them. > > > > > > > > > > > > If Im getting the numbers right I'm seeing various caches > > > > > > expiring after the poudriere build finished. But that NAMEI > > > > > > seems to be growing quite extensively still, don't know if > > > > > > that's expected or not :) > > > > > Are you running the nfsd? > > > > > > > > > > I ask because there might be a pretty basic blunder in the NFS > > > > > server. There several places where the NFS server code calls > > > > > namei() and they don't do a NDFREE_PNBUF() after the call. > > > > > All but one of them is related to the pNFS server, so it > > > > > would not affect anyone (no one uses it), but one of them is > > > > > used to update the V4 export list (a function called > > > > > nfsrv_v4rootexport()). > > > > > > > > > > So Kostik, should there be a NDFREE_PNBUF() after a successful > > > > > namei() call to get rid of the buffer? > > > > So, I basically answered the question myself. After mjg@'s > > > > commit on Sep. 17, 2022 (5b5b7e2 in main), the buffer is always > > > > saved unless there is an error return. > > > YYes. > > > > > > > > > > > The "vmstat -z | fgrep NAMEI" count does increase by one each > > > > time I send a SIGHUP to mountd. > > > > This is fixed by adding a NDFREE_PNBUF(). > > > > > > > > However, one buffer each time exports are reloaded probably is > > > > not the leak you guys are looking for. > > > > > > Definitely. > > > > > > I am not sure what they reported (instead of raw output some > > > interpretation was provided), but so far it seems just the normal > > > vnode caching. Perhaps they can compare the number of vnode > > > allocated against the cap kern.maxvnodes. The allocation number > > > should not exceed the maxvnodes significantly. > > > > > > > I appologise for not just pasting the direct dumps, but I didn't > > think multiple 246 line files would be appreciated. > > > > All the raw data is at http://files.beldin.org/logs. > > > > Unfortunately a power outage occured here before I was able to reach > > the memory exhaustion level so I will have to wait another > > approximately 2 days to hit the problem again. > A fix for a NAMEI leak was just committed to main. > Maybe you can update your kernel and see if this helps for > your problem? > > rick > > > > > Darrin > > > Sounds like a possibility. I'll set the wheels in motion and see how we go. Darrin