From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 29 14:43:00 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11DC037B401 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 14:43:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E5A743F85 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 14:42:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fledge.watson.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6TLg4ai078216; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:42:04 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from localhost (robert@localhost)h6TLg4AP078213; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:42:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:42:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Watson X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Dave Dolson In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: "'freebsd-stable@freebsd.org'" Subject: RE: kernel deadlock X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 21:43:00 -0000 On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Dave Dolson wrote: > To follow up, I've discovered that the system has exhausted its "FFS > node" malloc type. > > >From vmstat on the core file, the "FFS node" MALLOC type is full: > > > Memory statistics by type Type Kern > Type InUse MemUse HighUse Limit Requests Limit Limit Size(s) > ... > FFS node409600102400K 102400K102400K 1138048 3 0 256 > ... > > The stress test is recursively creating a directory then cd'ing to it, > trying to create 1,000,000 deep. > > You might say "don't do that", but this doesn't require any special > priviledge, so is a potential DoS attack by any user. > > I'm wondering why the MALLOC is done with M_WAITOK; it seems like > something which could reasonably fail. > > Or, why aren't the cached inodes being purged? Some problems with this have turned up in -CURRENT on large-memory machines where some of the scaling factors have been off. In -CURRENT, I believe changes were introduced to bound the number of active vnodes more rigorously at large memory sizes, and they probably need to be merged to -STABLE. You may want to try lowering the value of kern.maxvnodes during the boot process -- however, the number of vnodes can exceed this max under a number of common circumstances, so that may not be sufficient (worth a try). Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Network Associates Laboratories