Opened 2 years ago

Closed 2 years ago

Last modified 2 years ago

#17463 closed bug (fixed)

"Cached memory" continually increases

Reported by: waddlesplash Owned by: nobody
Priority: blocker Milestone: R1/beta4
Component: System/Kernel Version: R1/Development
Keywords: Cc:
Blocked By: Blocking:
Platform: All

Description

Diver noticed this. On nightly builds, the "cached memory" metric (and actual memory usage) continually goes up while the system is on, and does not seem to go down. This appears to be a relatively recent regression.

Change History (16)

comment:1 by X512, 2 years ago

Occurs for me too. It starts swapping when become full.

comment:2 by waddlesplash, 2 years ago

Maybe this is related to or just the same as #17208.

comment:3 by diver, 2 years ago

#17208 is definitely not my case.

comment:4 by waddlesplash, 2 years ago

Qt Creator seems to trigger this incredibly reliably.

Diver, did you have any luck determining when this started?

comment:5 by diver, 2 years ago

Nope.

comment:6 by AGMS, 2 years ago

While you're at it, see if virtual address space ever gets released. On 32 bit Haiku, this is actually a finite resource!

comment:7 by waddlesplash, 2 years ago

So! On one test run on x86_64, ActivityMonitor claims "cached memory" is 2.3GB, but the "cached pages" queue has only 187450 pages (~767MB) in it according to the "page_queue" KDL command.

It appears the real culprit is the block cache: it has 1.6GB used.

comment:8 by waddlesplash, 2 years ago

Not seeing any recent changes to the block cache or to BFS that have any relevance at all: not a good sign. I guess the thing to look at next would be the GCC 11 upgrade, then.

comment:9 by waddlesplash, 2 years ago

Now this is interesting: I dropped to KDL and dumped statistics on the block cache:

kdebug> block_cache 0xffffffff8238c780
BLOCK CACHE: 0xffffffff8238c780
 fd:           0
 max_blocks:   16777216
 block_size:   2048
 next_transaction_id: 5
 buffer_cache: 0xffffffff8239ea00
 busy_reading: 0, no waiters
 busy_writing: 0, no waiters
 298 blocks total, 0 dirty, 0 discarded, 0 referenced, 0 busy, 298 in unused.

However, vmstat has a very different claim about how much memory is in use:

block cache memory:     41418752

That's over 20,000 blocks at 2048 bytes per block!

Compiling BFS or the block_cache at -O0 seems to make no difference. Something else seems to be going on...

comment:10 by waddlesplash, 2 years ago

kdebug> block_cache 0xffffffff8238c780
BLOCK CACHE: 0xffffffff8238c780
 fd:           0
 max_blocks:   16777216
 block_size:   2048
 next_transaction_id: 20
 buffer_cache: 0xffffffff8239ea00
 busy_reading: 0, no waiters
 busy_writing: 0, no waiters
 1444 blocks total, 1 dirty, 0 discarded, 0 referenced, 0 busy, 1443 in unused.
kdebug> slabs | grep cache
           address                   name  objsize    align    usage  empty  usedobj    total    flags
0xffffffff8238fc48          cached blocks      104        8  1572864      0     1477    15120 20000000
0xffffffff8238fa88    cache notifications       72        8     4096      0        2       56        0
0xffffffff8239ea00    block cache buffers     2048        8 27787264      0     2899    13568 20000000

Somehow, there are quite a lot more "used cached blocks" than the block_cache actually thinks there are, and even more cached buffers than that.

Last edited 2 years ago by waddlesplash (previous) (diff)

comment:11 by waddlesplash, 2 years ago

Ah, at least part of the extra usage is because of the allocated comparison blocks, which are enabled in KDEBUG_LEVEL_2. The leak in the above output is thus "only" 11 blocks. The prior example has a much bigger leak, then.

comment:12 by waddlesplash, 2 years ago

This may be helped by hrev55862. We'll see how much memory I see leaked on longer uptimes.

comment:13 by waddlesplash, 2 years ago

Resolution: fixed
Status: newclosed

As far as I can tell, this is now fixed. Cached memory still grows large, but when you actually try to use lots of memory, it rapidly decreases as it should.

comment:14 by diver, 2 years ago

Not fixed for me unfortunately.

comment:15 by korli, 2 years ago

Shall we reopen or some other tickets already exist?

comment:16 by waddlesplash, 2 years ago

Probably a new ticket should be made.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.